The Complainant is Carrefour of Paris, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Yiqiong Ying of Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 17, 2013. On December 18, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 19, 2013, 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 January 8, 2014, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in both Chinese and English language regarding the language of the proceeding. On January 14, 2014, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 14, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 3, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 5, 2014.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on February 14, 2014. 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 is a French based multinational retail chain. In certain countries, the Complainant is also in the banking business. In France, its bank is called Carrefour Banque. The Complainant has trademark registrations globally, including international registrations and registrations in China. It is the registered proprietor of the trademark CARREFOUR, registered and used for different kinds of services in different classes, including in Class 35. In China, the Complainant is also the registrant of a trademark made up of Carrefour and the Chinese characters for Carrefour (家乐福) in class 36 for, inter alia, financial services.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 13, 2013. At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name was inactive. At the time of rendering this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page where a notice appears in English that the disputed domain name may be for sale and providing contact details of the registrant. There are also sponsored links on the page. At the bottom of the page there is also a notice in English and Chinese to the following effect:
“B is registered and reserved for future development.
Disclaimer: is a generic, independent and privately-owned domain, not affiliated with any party.
Copyright © 2014 B All Rights Reserved” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademarks and domain names save of the addition of the generic words “bank” and “of”.
Rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has not been known by the name “Bank of Carrefour” and the Respondent has no connection with the Complainant or any of its affiliates and by passively holding the disputed domain name, the Respondent did not demonstrate use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor did the Respondent show any intention of noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Registered and being used in bad faith
The Complainant submits that there is no doubt that before registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s rights in the trademark CARREFOUR, and it is likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of Proceedings
The language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese. Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that:
“Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”
The Complainant requested the language of the proceedings to be English on a number of grounds that are no longer necessary to consider. The grounds were put forward because there was no evidence the Respondent understood English. It is clear from the English language now used on the website that the Respondent does understand English and, accordingly, the Panel determines that English shall be the language of proceedings. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is made up of the registered trademark CARREFOUR with the addition of two generic words “bank” and “of” and the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com”. For the purposes of determining identity in UDRP proceedings, the gTLD typically does not need to be considered.
According to previous UDRP decisions, the “addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP” (see paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)).
The Panel therefore finds the disputed domain name as being confusingly similar to the registered trademark CARREFOUR.
The Panel finds that the first part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests.
In the circumstance of this case, both the passive holding of the disputed domain name at the time of filing of the Complaint and the current use made by the Respondent of the website under the disputed domain name as a parking page makes it hard to imagine that the Respondent could establish any rights or legitimate interests.
None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.
The Panel finds the second part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For the same reasons as those above, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel considers the passive holding of the disputed domain name as sufficient evidence for a finding of bad faith registration and use. Furthermore, the apparent offer to sell the disputed domain name on the webpage it currently resolves to are circumstances that indicate the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name for the purposes of selling the disputed domain name contrary to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
Further, the current use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a parking page where there are sponsored links clearly falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:
“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
The Panel finds that the third part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: February 28, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy