The Complainant is Carrefour of Boulogne-Billancourt, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is 1&1 Internet Inc. of Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania, United States of America ("United States") / Gregory Mayer of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 1&1 Internet SE (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 15, 2017. On the same date, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 16, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 17, 2017, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amended Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 21, 2017.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 March 22, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 11, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 12, 2017.
The Center appointed Sir Ian Barker as the sole panelist in this matter on April 21, 2017. 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 retailer employing some 380,000 people in more than 11,500 stores in more than 30 countries. It has about 13 million customers per day with revenues of EUR 104.4 million in 2015.
The Complainant owns numerous CARREFOUR trademark registrations around the world.
The Complainant, in particular, is the owner of the following trademark registrations:
- International trademark CARREFOUR no. 353849, dated of February 28, 1969, and duly renewed, covering services in classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42;
- European Union trademark CARREFOUR no. 005178371 filed on June 20, 2006 and registered on August 30, 2007, duly renewed and covering goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38.
The Complainant or its affiliates own the domain names , registered October 25, 1995, and , registered June 23, 2005.
The disputed domain name was registered on February 28, 2017. After this registration, the Complainant's employees received emails entitled "Urgent Invoice Payment" requesting payment of an invoice by the Complainant's Chief Executive Officer. The Complainant became aware of an email address ([first name_name]@), which wrongly incorporated the name of the Complainant's Chief Financial Officer and reproduces the structure of the Complainant's email addresses.
On March 1, 2017 the Complainant sent to the Respondent 1&1 Internet Inc. a "cease-and-desist" letter and email citing its trademark rights. No reply was received despite two reminders. The disputed domain name was registered with the Respondent 1&1 Internet Inc. which provided a privacy shield for the Respondent, Gregory Mayer. In these circumstances, the Respondents are referred to as "the Respondent".
The Complainant gave the Respondent no authority of any kind to reflect its trademark in the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademarks. It is identical except for the addition of a second letter "r" and the trademarked name CARREFOUR.
Numerous UDRP panelists have categorized the Complainant's trademark as "famous" or "well-known". The Complainant has succeeded in many cases where a domain name has been found to have breached the Policy.
The Respondent is guilty of "typosquatting" whereby a letter in a trademark is deleted, altered and added in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant gave the Respondent no rights or legitimate interests which would allow the Respondent to reflect the trademark in a domain name. None of the situations described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies to the Respondent.
The email using the name of the Complainant's Chief Financial Officer constitutes "phishing" and is a scam designed to extract money from the Complainant's clients, employees and/or suppliers (see Google, Inc. v. Robert Takovich,WIPO Case No. DMX2012-0006). The email address used to impersonate Complainant's Chief Financial Officer reproduces the structure of the Complainant's official email addresses ([firstname_name]@). Hence, it can be concluded that the disputed domain name was primarily registered for phishing purposes. Subsequently, such a registration cannot reasonably be considered as a bona fide one.
In another "phishing" case, the Panel said:
"It is clear from the relevant circumstances that the Respondents were well aware of the Complainant and had the Complainant's mark in mind when registering the disputed domain names. The record convincingly evinces that the Respondents' primary motive in relation to the registration and use of the disputed domain names was to capitalize on or otherwise take advantage of the Complainant's trademark rights, in furtherance of a scheme of identity theft and fraud perpetrated on the public."
There is no doubt that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith being aware of the Complainant, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer (NES Rentals Holdings, Inc. v Gold Bond Inc / John Bickel / brian parris / James Frost / James Keller / John Doe / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2012-1002).
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant is well-known throughout the world. It is highly unlikely that the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant's mark and reputation – particularly when it tried to involve a senior employee of the Complainant in a "phishing" attack.
The very use of the Complainant's well-known trademark in a domain name suggests opportunistic bad faith by the Respondent.
A likelihood of confusion must exist by reason of the Respondent's typosquatting. Internet traffic will be diverted to the disputed domain name's website by persons seeking to visit the Complainant's website who mis-type the domain name.
The passive holding by the Respondent in all the circumstances points to bad faith when all the Respondent's behavior is considered (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
The use of a privacy shield by the true Respondent also indicates bad faith in all the circumstances. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements:
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
To be successful, the Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present (paragraph 4(a) of the Policy). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is obviously confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates all of the trademark with the addition of an additional "r". This is a typical instance of typosquatting – a phenomenon that has been the source of confusing similarity in many UDRP decisions over the years.
Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant gave the Respondent no authority of any sort to reflect its trademarks in a domain name.
This fact and the circumstances of the present case satisfy paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy in the absence of any response or evidence from the Respondent.
The Respondent could have claimed that one of the situations envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applied to the registration of the disputed domain name, e.g., by invoking paragraph 4(c) of the Policy to the satisfaction of the Panel that one of its three provisions applied in this case. However, the Respondent has chosen not to do so, and the Complainant has met its burden. The Complainant's claim that it gave the Respondent no authority is not challenged by the Respondent.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
This is a blatant case of cybersquatting. The Respondent's tinkering with the Complainant's trademark as reflected in the disputed domain name indicates that the Respondent well knew of the Complainant's mark and its fame and reputation.
The disputed domain name incorporates in full the Complainant's trademark. The Respondent has no relationship with the CARREFOUR trademark or the Complainant. Registration of a domain name that is confusing similar or identical to a well-known trademark by any entity that does not have a relationship to that mark may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited v. West Coast Consulting, LLC,WIPO Case No. D2005-1319.
The Respondent would have been aware of the goodwill associated with the word "Carrefour" and wished to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark.
The disputed domain name is currently inactive. Such passive holding in these circumstances is further evidence of the Respondent's bad faith.
Moreover, the Respondent has ignored the cease-and-desist letter and its reminders sent by the Complainant. This is another indication of the bad faith of the Respondent as is the use in the present circumstances of a privacy shield.
The Complainant clearly has satisfied 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Sir Ian Barker
Sole Panelist
Date: May 3, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy