WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Nexperian Holding Limited / Xu YunJun Case No. D2018-1718 1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Nexperian Holding Limited of Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China / Xu YunJun of Shanghai, China, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (previously HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd.) (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 30, 2018. On July 30, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 31, 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 August 6, 2018, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Chinese, regarding the language of the proceeding. On the same day, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

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 August 13, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 2, 2018. The Response was filed with the Center on August 13, 2018. On the same day, the Center acknowledged receipt of the Response and requested the Respondent to confirm whether the communication on August 13, 2018 may be regarded as its complete Response, to which the Respondent did not reply. On September 3, 2018, the Center notified the Parties that it would proceed to appoint the Panel.

The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on September 11, 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 trademark upon which the Complaint is based is MICHELIN. According to the documentary evidence and contentions submitted, the Complainant owns several trademark registrations of the MICHELIN trademark worldwide, including three in China where the Respondent is resident (e.g., Registration No 6167649, registered on January 7, 2010). The Complainant uses the MICHELIN trademark in connection with its manufacturing and sale of tires, maps, guides and various other goods and services. The Panel notes that previous UDRP panels have found the Complainant’s trademark to be “well known”. Moreover, the Complainant is the owner of two domain names, and , reflecting its trademarks.

The Respondent is an individual with an address in Shanghai, China.

According to the documentary evidence and contentions submitted, the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent with the Registrar on September 6, 2017 using a privacy service “Nexperian Holding Limited”. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. The Complainant by its lawyers sent a cease and desist letter to the privacy service on October 5, 2017 via registered mail and by email. The Complainant states that no response was ever received and the Respondent states that no letter was received from the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions are as follows:

Identical or confusingly similar

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MICHELIN trademark because it incorporates in its entirety the MICHELIN trademark with only the addition of “sh” as a suffix, which is the geographic descriptor of Shanghai. Moreover, the addition of the letters “sh” to the trademark is not distinctive and does not mitigate confusion, but instead contributes to the likelihood of confusion that the domain is registered by a Shanghai affiliate of the Complainant.

No rights or legitimate interests

The Complainant further argued that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain because the Respondent: (i) is not affiliated with or otherwise authorized by the Complainant to use the MICHELIN trademark, (ii) did not have any prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the MICHELIN trademarks were registered before the disputed domain name, (iii) cannot reasonably assert it was intending to develop any legitimate activity through the disputed domain name because it is essentially identical to the Claimant’s trademark, (iv) fails to show any intention of non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name because it resolves to an inactive webpage.

Registration and use in bad faith

It is highly likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark rights before registering the disputed domain name because the MICH