WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Eurodrive Services and Distribution N.V. v. Roshan T

Case No. D2018-1586

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Eurodrive Services and Distribution N.V. of Amsterdam, Netherlands, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.

The Respondent is Roshan T of Hisar, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <atseuromaster.online> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 13, 2018. On July 13, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, 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.

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 20, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 9, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 10, 2018.

The Center appointed Nicolas Ulmer as the sole panelist in this matter on August 21, 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

Euromaster is a subsidiary operation within the Michelin Group of companies; Michelin being a multinational manufacturer of tires and other equipment which the Complaint documents as having more than 100,00 employees and dozens of facilities around the world which manufactured 187 million tires in 2016.

Euromaster is a brand of the Michelin Group, and comprises a large number of integrated and franchised dealers; Euromaster provides tire expertise and maintenance services for both general and professional or specialized vehicles. According to the Complaint, Euromaster is a leading service provider with thousands of service centres and mobile service vans selling and fitting more than 10 million tires each year.

The Complainant, also part of the Michelin Group, holds at least six trademarks for the trademark EUROMASTER. These trademarks are variously registered in France (2), Spain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), Poland, and the Netherlands for services in classes 12, 37 and 39. The earliest registration, in France, dates from 1990, and the most recent, a Dutch registration, from 2006.

The Complainant also operates the website <euromaster.com>, which was registered in 1996; the Complainant’s affiliate or subsidiary in the UK is named ATS Euromaster.

Little is known of the Respondent, who appears to be an individual resident in India.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 7, 2018 and presently resolves to a page indicating “account suspended”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant points out, notably, that it sent cease and desist notices and reminders concerning its improper use of the disputed domain name to the Respondent, but received no reply. However, shortly following the sending of the cease and desist notices the Respondent stopped its active use of the disputed domain name, which had been offering plumbing services, and the disputed domain name now resolves to a page indicating “account suspended.” In this connection the Complainant alleges that its investigations reveal that an email server has been configured on the disputed domain name, thus possibly raising the risk of “phishing.”

For the rest the Complainant asserts that all of the first three elements of paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy are here met; notably; that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks; that The Respondent was never given any genre of permission to use such trademarks and has no rights in them; and that both the registration and use of the disputed domain name are constitutive of bad faith.

Thereupon the Complainant requests that the disputed domain name by transferred to it.

To the extent necessary or appropriate the Complainant’s factual assertions and allegations will be discussed further in Section 6, below.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark, preceded by the letters “ats”. It is not clear what “ats” is intended to signify, albeit it corresponds to the name of the Complainant’s UK company. Where, as here, the Complainant’s well-known trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. Its incorporation in a domain name will generally render the domain name confusingly similar to the registered trademark.

In the instant case the addition of the “ats” prefix does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark, and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “online” is irrelevant.

It follows that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has consequently met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

UDRP decisions and jurisprudence establish that a complainant needs to make at least a prima facie case showing that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. Once such a prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has such rights or legitimate interests. See also, Meizu Technology Co., Ltd v. “osama bin laden”, WIPO Case No. DCO2014-002; H & M Hennes & Mauritz AB v. Simon Maufe, Akinsaya Odunayo Emmanuel and Nelson Rivaldo, WIPO Case No. D2014-0225.

In the present case the Complainant has vigorously confirmed that it has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to use its trademarks in a domain name or in any other manner. In addition, the Respondent did not reply to the cease and desist letters of the Complainant that asserted that the Respondent had no right to the disputed domain name.

There is furthermore no evidence before the Panel to suggest that the Respondent, who appears to be an individual called Roshan T, is also commonly known as “atseuromaster” or “euromaster”, or any other evidence or indicia suggesting that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent having failed to answer the Complaint, the Complainant has accordingly met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The degree of renown of the Complainant’s trademarks, and the demonstrated extent and promotion of the brand to which these trademarks attach, render it highly implausible that the Respondent’s recent registration of the disputed domain name was serendipitous. To the contrary, all evidence and inference is that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge that it contained a trademarked brand name, and likely with the intent to profit from the renown of those trademarks. The fact that the disputed domain name is largely identical to the name of the Complainant’s UK affiliate is also unlikely to be coincidental.

These factors are also pertinent to bad faith use, as it is here difficult to find any indicia of a possible legitimate or bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has, certainly, not advanced any reason or explanation as to its good faith use of the disputed domain name; to the contrary it has failed to answer the Complaint and, previously, failed to respond to a cease and desist notice from the Complainant. The failure to answer such a demand letter, is an indicia of bad faith. The fact that after having received the cease and desist letter, the disputed domain name was directed to an “account suspended” page is further indicia of bad faith.

The Complainant’s allegation of possible “phishing” is necessarily somewhat speculative, but it is not necessary to consider or decide this allegation in order to find bad faith here.

More generally, there does not here appear to be any good faith explanation for the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name.

For all these reasons the Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <atseuromaster.online> be transferred to the Complainant.

Nicolas Ulmer
Sole Panelist
Date: August 28, 2018