WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Zhangqiang Case No. D2018-1573 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin of Clermont-Ferrand, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.

The Respondent is Zhang Qiang of Hangzhou, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 12, 2018. On July 12, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 13, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On July 16, 2018, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on July 17, 2018. The Respondent did not reply by the specified due date.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 26, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 15, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified of the Respondent's default on August 16, 2018.

The Center appointed Joseph Simone as the sole panelist in this matter on August 22, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant, Michelin, is a French tire company headquartered in Clermont-Ferrand, and is one of the largest tire manufacturers in the world. Michelin set up its first representative office in mainland China in Beijing in 1989.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations around the world. They include several registrations for MICHELIN in China, the earliest of which registered on April 5, 1980, covering goods in class 12 (see Chinese Trademark No. 136402).

In addition, the Complainant operates domain names reflecting its trademark including .

The disputed domain name was registered on January 29, 2018, by the Respondent Zhangqiang, of Hangzhou, China. It previously resolved to an inactive website. It now resolves to a Chinese-language webpage related to Chinese medicine.

On February 21, 2018, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, via registered letter and email, requesting that the Respondent transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant free of charge, on the basis of the Complainant's trademark rights. As the Respondent did not reply, the Complainant commenced this proceeding. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Identical or confusingly similar

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark MICHELIN in which it has rights, based on the following:

(i) The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for MICHELIN around the world, including in China. In addition, the Complainant operates domain names reflecting its trademark including .

(ii) The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's trademark MICHELIN in its entirety, which previous UDRP panels have considered as "well-known". Many UDRP decisions have considered that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark. The addition of the acronym "vip" does not dispel the likelihood of confusion and the addition of the Top-Level Domain ("TLD") should be disregarded since it is a technical requirement of registration.

(iii) The Complainant has used the trademark MICHELIN in connection with a wide variety of products and services such that the public has come to perceive the goods and services offered under this trademark as being those of the Complainant. Therefore, the public may reasonably assume and is likely to be misled that the disputed domain name is owned by or at least related to the Complainant. Rights or legitimate interests

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name based on the following:

(i) The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use and register its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating that trademark. The Respondent has no prior rights, as registration of the MICHELIN trademarks precedes the registration of the disputed domain name by many years.

(ii) Initially the disputed domain name resolved to an inactive page. It was only after the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter that the disputed domain name started to resolve towards a page related to Chinese medicine. Hence, the Respondent did not make demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name and has failed to show any intention of non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

(iii) The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's cease-and-desist letter, thereby failing to avail itself of its right to demonstrate a right or legitimate interest. Registered and used in bad faith

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith on the following grounds:

(i) Given the well-known status of the MICHELIN trademark and the ease with which the Complainant's rights could be ascertained, the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant's rights prior to registration. Previous Panels have established that knowledge of a complainant's rights at the time of registration can prove registra