WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-0349 for banque-carrefour.name, banque-carrefour.net, carrefour-banque.info, carrefour-banque.net

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Carrefour v. Kara Turner Case No. D2018-0349 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Carrefour of Boulogne-Billancourt, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.

The Respondent is Kara Turner of West Des Moines, Iowa, United States of America. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain names , , and are registered with Eranet International Limited (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 14, 2018. On February 16, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 24, 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.

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 February 28, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 20, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 21, 2018.

The Center appointed Frank Schoneveld as the sole panelist in this matter on April 17, 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

Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations:

- International trademark CARREFOUR No. 351147, registered on October 2, 1968, duly renewed, covering goods in classes 1-34;

- International trademark CARREFOUR No. 1010661, registered on April 16, 2009;

- European Trademark CARREFOUR No. 005178371, registered on August 30, 2007;

- French trademark BANQUE CARREFOUR No. 3585968, registered on July 2, 2008.

Complainant and its affiliates are the registrants of the following domain names which include its trademarks:

- registered on October 25, 1995;

- registered on October 7, 2009.

The disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent as follows:

- on January 30, 2018;

- on January 17, 2018;

- on November 22, 2017; and

- on November 12, 2017.

The disputed domain name :

The webpage to which the disputed domain name resolved, is linked to various sports news. However, after clicking on the "Home" icon in the navigation bar (left to "Actualités") the webpage redirected the Internet user to a page that was largely identical to the Carrefour Banque website at the Complainant's domain name . On this page the Internet user is asked to enter their Internet ID, and its access code and is then redirected to a form asking for an update of personal data. In this form the following data is requested: user's coordinates, user's mobile phone number, user's credit card information and a code that will be sent to user's mobile phone after dialing the phone number #3179. This code received by the Internet user is the "RIO" code (Relevé d'Identité Opérateur code) received following the request to phone number #3179. This RIO code is used to transfer a mobile phone number to a new mobile phone operator. In this way the recipient of the RIO code is able to "impersonate" the holder of the bank account to make bank operations and online purchases that need to be approved by authorization codes sent to the Internet user's mobile phone. After entering the requested data, including the RIO code, the Internet user is redirected again to the official Carrefour website to which the Complainant's domain name resolves and where the user must again login.

On November 20, 2017, the Complainant sent a letter to the Respondent requiring that the Respondent "cease the use of the domain name" , one of the disputed domain names, and included a request to transfer this disputed domain name to the Complainant. On the same date (November 20, 2017) letters were also sent by the Complainant by email to hosting providers and the Registrar with a request to block access to the website to which resolved the disputed domain name being . This disputed domain name , was then deactivated by the Registrar.

The disputed domain name :

Following registration of the disputed domain name , the webpage to which it resolved was to the same page as that to which one of the other disputed domain names resolved, namely the same page to which resolved. This was the same sports news page that, after clicking on the "Home" icon in the navigation bar, linked to a webpage that was largely identical to the official Carrefour Banque website at the Complainant's domain name . This linked webpage sought the same information (including RIO code) as that mentioned above in respect of the disputed domain name . After a request from the Complainant to the hosting providers and the Registrar to block access to this website and to deactivate this disputed domain name, the disputed domain name was also deactivated by the Registrar.

The disputed domain name :

Following registration by the Respondent of the disputed domain name , the Complainant sent a letter to the Registrar of this disputed domain name indicating the situation with other similar domain names registered by the Respondent and requesting it to block this disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name :

Following the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name which resolved to the website of a restaurant in Paris entitled "Le Confidentiel". The Complainant sent a letter to the Registrar of this disputed domain name indicating the situation with other similar domain names registered by the Respondent and requesting the Registrar to also block this disputed domain name.

In response to an email dated February 24, 2018 from the Centre to the Registrar entitled "Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Registrar Verification" a representative of the Registrar indicated the specific language of the registration agreement as used by the registrant for each domain name as follows:

": English

: English

: English

: English"

Between March 2 and March 8, 2018 a courier engaged by the Centre attempted to deliver a copy of the complaint to the Respondent at the address in the USA given to the Registrar at registration of the disputed domain names, but was unable to make any delivery after three attempts. Attempts by the Centre on February 28, 2018 to send the Complaint by facsimile to the Respondent's phone number given to the Registrar at registration of the disputed domain names, resulted in no response after five attempts so that no delivery was made. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant Carrefour states that:

- it is a global leader and a reference in food retail, operating nearly 12,000 stores and e-commerce sites in more than 30 countries using a retail group that employs more than 380,000 people worldwide and generated total sales of EUR 103.7 billion in 2016;

- it daily has 13 million customers around the world;

- is a major player in global retail, currently operating in mainland France and its overseas territories; and in Europe, Latin America, Asia, as well as in North Africa and the Middle East.

The Complainant indicates that as a banking subsidiary of the Carrefour group, Carrefour Banque has for more than thirty years offered financial products including MasterCard PASS card, current account, revolving credit, personal loan, car and home insurance, etc, and that it does so in agencies in France, by phone, and on the website at "www." as well as by mobile applications. The Complainant says that Carrefour Banque has more than 2.5 million customers and manages a total of outstanding loans of EUR 2.9 billion and a total of EUR 2.3 billion held for its customer savers.

The Complainant contends that all four disputed domain names , , and reproduce the Complainant's trademarks CARREFOUR and BANQUE CARREFOUR in their entirety. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names and are near to identical with the Complainant's trademark BANQUE CARREFOUR and the only differences are inverted position of words BANQUE and CARREFOUR in the domain names and hyphenation between these two terms, noting that previous UDRP panels have come to the conclusion that hyphenation in domain names is insufficient to distinguish the Respondent's domain names from the Complainant's mark because the dominant portion of each domain name is the Complainant's trademark.

The Complainant contends that regarding the ".net", ".info" and ".name" Top-Level-Domains ("TLDs") in the disputed domain names, it has been held in numerous decisions that the addition of the generic Top-Level-Domain ("gTLD") suffix does not affect the likelihood of confusion merely because it is necessary for the registration of the domain name itself. The Complainant argues that the Complainant's trademark CARREFOUR has been considered to be "well-known" or "famous" by numerous previous UDRP panels and that the Complainant has used the trademarks CARREFOUR and BANQUE CARREFOUR in connection with a wide variety of products and services around the world, and consequently, the public has learned to perceive the goods and services offered under these trademarks as being those of the Complainant, including financial services. The Complainant argues therefore, that the public would reasonably assume that the disputed domain names would be owned by the Complainant or at least assume that it is related to the Complainant.

The Complainant asserts that by registering the four disputed domain names the Respondent created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks and it is likely that these domain names could mislead Internet users into thinking that they are, in some way, associated with the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that for all the above reasons, it clearly appears that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks CARREFOUR and BANQUE CARREFOUR in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant states that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has it been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use and register its trademark, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the trademarks CARREFOUR and BANQUE CARREFOUR, and that the Respondent is not known by the name of CARREFOUR nor BANQUE CARREFOUR. The Complainant notes that in addition, the Respondent has no prior right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names since the registration of CARREFOUR and BANQUE CARREFOUR trademarks preceded the registration of the disputed domain names by years and even decades.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are so similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark CARREFOUR and trademark BANQUE CARREFOUR that the Respondent cannot reasonably pretend it was intending to develop a legitimate activity through those disputed domain names. The Complainant argues that in previous decisions, Panels have found that in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use such a widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed. Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent did not demonstrate, use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and indeed, the Respondent was using the disputed domain names and for operating fraudulent websites created for phishing valuable information from Internet users and for fraudulently obtaining authorization codes required for bank operations and online purchases.

The Complainant points out that the fraudulent website to which two of the disputed domain names were also redirecting Internet users to a webpage impersonating the Complainant's official website at nearly an identical domain name, being . The Complainant contends that this impersonation of the Complainant includes use of the Complainant's reputation for obtaining sensitive information from Internet users, which cannot be deemed legitimate (nor legal) activity.

The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name directs to the website of a French restaurant in Paris, and says that this restaurant is not linked in any way with the Complainant, and such use of does not constitute a bona fide offering of services since the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a commercial venture.

The Complainant argues that in previous UDRP decisions, panels have found that in so far as there was no apparent reason for the Respondent to have chosen a disputed domain name other than to profit by its fame and by the traffic generated by the likely initial expectation of users, that it is a name associated with the Complainant and its services.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent failed to provide the Complainant with a response following the reception of the cease-and-desist letter and that other UDRP panels have repeatedly stated that when respondents do not avail themselves of their rights to respond to the Complainant, it can be assumed that these respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith, adding that it is implausible the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when he registered the disputed domain names, and that bad faith can be found where the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant's trademark rights yet nevertheless, registered the disputed domain names in which he had no right or legitimate interest. The Complainant argues that registration in bad faith is shown by:

- the Complainant being well known throughout the world and its trademark CARREFOUR is registered worldwide;

- several UDRP panels have previously mentioned its worldwide reputation, making it unlikely the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant's proprietary rights in the trademarks CARREFOUR and BANQUE CARREFOUR;

- the Respondent was deliberately trying to impersonate the Complainant's identity and its' financial services which means that the Respondent was very familiar with Complainant's activities; and

- the Respondent has chosen the disputed domain names , , and while the first two are in their Second-Level-Domain ("SLD") identical with the Complainant's domain name that additionally suggests familiarity with Complainant's activities.

The Complainant concludes that therefore, it is impossible the Respondent did not have in mind the Complainant's trademarks CARREFOUR and BANQUE CARREFOUR and the Complainant's activities, when registering the disputed domain names.

The Complainant asserts that bad faith has been found by previous UDRP panels where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith and that, given the reputation of CARREFOUR and BANQUE CARREFOUR trademarks, registration in bad faith by the Respondent can be inferred.

The Complainant says that in this day and age of the Internet and advancement in information technology, the reputation of brands and trademarks transcends national borders, and taking into account the worldwide reputation of the Complainant and its trademarks, as well as the strong reputation of the Complainant, it is hard to believe the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant and its trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, and even supposing that the Respondent was not aware of the possibility of searching trademarks online before registering a domain name, a simple search via any search engine using the keywords "Carrefour", "Banque Carrefour" or the entire "Carrefour Banque" demonstrates that all first results relate to the Complainant's field of activities or news.

The Complainant argues that in previous UDRP cases, knowledge of corresponding trademarks at the time of registration of the domain name suggests bad faith, and other UDRP decisions have established that knowledge of the Complainant's intellectual property rights, including trademarks, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name proves bad faith registration. The Complainant also notes that in one UDRP case, it was found that it would have been pertinent for the respondent to provide an explanation of its choice in the disputed domain name, failing which the UDRP panel would draw the conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with intent to create an impression of an association with the Complainant and its products. The Complainant goes on to contend that in this case however, the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant's cease-and-desist letter and therefore the Respondent has neither tried to defend his rights nor to state any valid arguments to justify the registration of the disputed domain names, and consequently, in view of the above-mentioned circumstances, the Complainant contends that it is established the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith.

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because, as found by previous UDRP panels:

- in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use such a widely known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain names could reasonably be claimed; and

- since the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks, a likelihood of confusion is presumed and such confusion will inevitably result in the diversion of Internet traffic from the Complainant's site to the Respondent's site.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent appears to be engaged in a well-developed phishing scheme since the disputed domain names resolve to a fraudulent website impersonating the Complainant's identity, and this is bad faith use of the disputed domain names.

The Complainant says that (a) it should be borne in mind that the first disputed domain name was registered on November 12, 2017, and that it became operational immediately with a well-developed fraudulent website making it clear that there is a premeditated phishing scheme associated with the disputed domain names, and (b) since this disputed domain name affects the Complainant's financial services, the information that might be received this way is even more sensitive (e.g., credit card numbers, account numbers, etc.).

The Complainant argues that previous UDRP panels have agreed that there is no better evidence of bad faith than a fraudulent scheme set up with the help of a domain name containing the trademark of a company the customers or Internet users of which, are being misled and deceived into believing they are dealing with the owner of the trademark, and consequently, panels have further concluded that the use of a disputed domain name for the purpose of defrauding Internet users by the operation of a "phishing" website is perhaps the clearest evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Complainant asserts that such use of the disputed domain names and demonstrates the Respondent's blatant intention to abusively benefit from the Complainant's reputation and particularly from its trademark CARREFOUR, to obtain commercial gain and in any event, this cannot be considered as a use of this disputed domain name in good faith.

The Complainant adds that it appears the Respondent has a history of bad faith behavior since the Respondent's e­mail address is associated with domain names used for transmission of malicious codes, in particular, that the domain name was registered with the Respondent's email address, and this domain name was used for the transmission of malicious codes.

The Complainant argues that it is very likely the Respondent's primary motive in registering and using the disputed domain names was to capitalize on or otherwise take advantage of the Complainant's trademark rights, through the creation of initial interest and of confusion, and that this behavior is likely to mislead the Internet users to link the disputed domain name to that of the Complainant.

Regarding the disputed domain name , the Complainant contends that it used to resolve to the website of a French restaurant in Paris, not linked in any way with the Complainant, and such use of the disputed domain name falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy in that it is a use by which the Respondent "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website or location or of a product or service on that website or location.

The Complainant states that the two disputed domain names and have resolved to an inactive page since their registration, however, this state of inactivity does not mean that the disputed domain names are used in good faith. Indeed, the Complainant asserts, this passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith and, in reference to a prior panel decision, states that a principle widely adopted by panels since shortly after the inception of the UDRP, has been to examine all the surrounding circumstances in which a disputed domain name may appear to be, or is claimed to be, held passively without any evident usage or purpose, and previous panels have already considered that passive holding of a disputed domain name can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), and in such cases the Panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the Respondent's behaviour.

In particular, the Complainant relies upon the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 in which the panel concluded that the respondent's passive holding of the domain name satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Rules that the disputed domain name was being used in bad faith by the respondent because:

(1) the complainant's trademark had a strong reputation and was widely known;

(2) the respondent had provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the domain name;

(3) the respondent had taken active steps to conceal its true identity, by operating under a name that is not a registered business name and;

(4) the respondent had actively provided, and failed to correct, false contact details, in breach of its registration agreement.

The Complainant contends that similarly, reproducing famous trademarks in a domain name in order to attract Internet users to an inactive website cannot be regarded as fair use or use in good faith.

Finally, the Complainant asserts that it is likely the Respondent registered the disputed domain names to prevent the Complainant from using its trademark in the disputed domain name, and that according to previous UDRP panels, this type of conduct constitutes evidence of the Respondent's bad faith.

In view of all of the above, the Complainant contends that all aforementioned circumstances confirm that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith and that consequently, it is established that the Respondent both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 11 of the Rules requires that the language of this administrative proceeding be the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain names, unless the Panel decides otherwise. Although the Registrar is in Hong Kong, China, in view of the Registrar's confirmation that the language of each of the registration agreements for all four of the disputed domain names, is English, the Panel decides that the language of these administrative proceedings shall be English.

Pursuant to UDRP paragraph 4(a), in order to have a domain name transferred or cancelled the complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:

(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(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.

The Rules at paragraph 15(a) require that "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." In the absence of any substantive rebuttal by the Respondent to the Complainant's assertions, the Panel therefore proceeds on the basis of the Complaint submitted by the Complainant, as well as in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that are applicable. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has provided evidence showing (i) that it is the holder of the CARREFOUR trademark registered internationally, including (in particular) in the United States where the Respondent has its address according to the WhoIs registration information, and (ii) that the Complainant is the holder of the BANQUE CARREFOUR registered trademark in France. This shows that the Complainant has rights in such registered trademarks. The Respondent did not challenge such evidence or respond to the contentions the Complainant has submitted.

It is clear that the disputed domain names all contain the word "carrefour" which forms the main part of the four disputed domain names , , and . Each of the disputed domain names includes exactly the same spelling as the Complainant's CARREFOUR trademark and adds the word "banque" with a hyphen. Furthermore, (a) the first two disputed domain names are the same as the Complainant's French trademark BANQUE CARREFOUR with an added hyphen, while (b) the other two disputed domain names invert the order of the words of the Complainant's French trademark BANQUE CARREFOUR and insert a hyphen between the words. In all other respects the disputed domain names are exactly the same as the Complainant's French registered trademark BANQUE CARREFOUR.

In the Panel's view the TLDs ".net", ".info" and ".name", and the addition of a hyphen in the disputed domain names, do not in this case affect the disputed domain names for the purpose of determining whether they are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. In view of the above, the Panel finds that the four disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The evidence provided by the Complainant indicates that the CARREFOUR trademark is well known around the world and the Panel accepts that it is well known internationally. There is also evidence that:

(i) the Respondent has no relationship, and is not affiliated, with the Complainant in any way;

(ii) the Complainant has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to register or to use any domain name incorporating the Complainant's CARREFOUR or BANQUE CARREFOUR trademarks; and

(iii) the Complainant's trademark CARREFOUR is well known internationally and the registration of the CARREFOUR trademark preceded the registration of the disputed domain names by many years, including in the USA where the Respondent has its address.

The prominent use in the disputed domain names of the Complainant's well-known CARREFOUR trademark, suggests that the Respondent has a right to use this mark in the disputed domain names or that the disputed domain names are associated with the Complainant. However, the Complainant makes it very clear that it has never given the Respondent permission to use the CARREFOUR trademark, and that its use without the Complainant's permission could well violate the Complainant's rights in its CARREFOUR trademark. All the above mentioned circumstances indicate that it is more likely than not that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.

The Panel notes that the Respondent's name does not bear any resemblance to any of the disputed domain names and there is nothing in the evidence before the Panel, including in the WhoIs record for the disputed domain names, that suggests the Respondent might be known by any of the disputed domain names or any part of them.

There is no evidence of any actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain names, and the Respondent did not show use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. A use of two of the disputed domain names, and , was to provide a link to a website that largely copied (without permission) the Complainant's website at "" in order to obtain private valuable information from Internet users who would have thought they were providing such information to the Complainant, and thereby to fraudulently obtain authorization codes required for bank operations and online purchases. Such use is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The other two disputed domain names and are not used, although for a short time it appeared the disputed domain name resolved to the webpage of a Paris restaurant.

The evidence provided by the Complainant, together with the conclusion that the CARREFOUR mark is well known, means there is likely to be limited circumstances in which the Respondent might have any rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names. In the absence of any submission from the Respondent on this element of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii), a prima facie case has been established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. In the Panel's view it is more likely than not the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of any of the disputed domain names. The Respondent has failed to provide any rebuttal of this prima facie case. In those circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain names and :

Evidence provided by the Complainant indicates that two of the disputed domain names, and , were being used to provide a link to a website that largely copied (without permission) the Complainant's website at "". The evidence shows that this was done in order to deceptively obtain private valuable information from Internet users who would have mistakenly thought they were providing such information to the Complainant. With such information the Respondent could then fraudulently obtain authorization codes required for bank operations including money transfers and online purchases. In addition, the disputed domain name , upon registration by the Respondent became operational immediately with a link to this deceptive website and fraudulent phishing mechanism for private valuable information. It appears also, that immediately or shortly after registration of , the same deceptive and fraudulent mechanism was in place. Such evidence indicates there was a premeditated phishing scheme associated with these two disputed domain names from the time they were registered. In those circumstances, and in the absence of any submission from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the two disputed domain names and were both registered and are used in bad faith.

The disputed domain names and :

The other two disputed domain names and have largely resolved to an inactive page since their registration without any evident purpose. Such passive holding of these two domain names should be considered in the context of all the surrounding circumstances. These are:

(a) The Complainant has demonstrated that its trademarks CARREFOUR is well known and that the trademark BANQUE CARREFOUR is widely known in France where the language is the same as that used in the disputed domain names and . An Internet user would, in that circumstance, be likely to mistakenly conclude that the disputed domain names are sponsored, affiliated or associated with the Complainant and not the Respondent.

(b) There is no evidence the Respondent is using a business or other name that has any similarity to the disputed domain names.

(c) In registering the disputed domain names (because of the widely known trademarks of the Complainant) the Respondent is at least allowing Internet users to mistakenly believe, and may be deliberately misleading Internet users to believe, that and are associated, affiliated or otherwise sponsored by the Complainant when clearly they are not.

(d) There is evidence that the Respondent has provided the Registrar of all four of the disputed domain names with false contact details, as indicated by the inability of the Center despite numerous attempts to do so, to deliver a copy of the Complaint to the Respondent at the physical address or via the facsimile number provided by the Respondent.

In addition, the Respondent's use of exactly the same words (but inverted) in and as the words used in the other two disputed domain names, indicates that the Respondent more likely than not, registered and used and to attract Internet users for the same fraudulent purpose as was used with and . There appears to be some preparation of such a fraudulent purpose as for a short time prior to it being blocked, resolved to the website of a Paris restaurant in the same way as the disputed domains and resolved to a sports news website with a link to the webpage (that largely copied without permission, the Complainant's official Banque Carrefour website at "www.") and deceptively sought valuable private information that would enable fraudulent use of Internet users' bank accounts.

There is also an allegation by the Complainant, without any compelling evidence, that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names to prevent the Complainant from using its trademark in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not replied to this allegation.

In view of all the above circumstances taken together, and in the absence of any submission from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the other two disputed domain names and were also registered and are used in bad faith. 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 names , , and be transferred to the Complainant.

Frank Schoneveld
Sole Panelist
Date: May 5, 2018

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy