1.1 The Complainant is Carrefour of Boulogne-Billancourt, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
1.2 The Respondent is Bryce Smith of the United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Eranet International Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 19, 2018. On September 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On September 21, 2018, 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 September 25, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 27, 2018.
3.2 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”).
3.3 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 27, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 17, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 18, 2018.
3.4 The Center appointed Ike Ehiribe as the sole panelist in this matter on October 25, 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
4.1 The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Carrefour, a French company with its registered office in Boulogne-Billancourt, France. Carrefour is said to operate more than 12,300 stores and e-commerce sites in more than 30 countries and employs more than 38,000 people worldwide. It is said also that Carrefour generated more than EUR 88.4 billion sales including VAT under its banners in 2017. Every day, Carrefour welcomes around 13 million customers around the world and is actively committed to quality and more sustainable trade. The Carrefour group now operates in three major markets in Europe, Latin America and Asia and generates more than 53 percent of its sales outside of France. The Carrefour group is said to be the premier private employer in the countries in which it operates and its banking subsidiary of the Carrefour group, Carrefour Banque, is said to have been offering a wide range of accessible and efficient products for the past 30 years, such as PASS MasterCard, current account, revolving credit, personal loans, credit redemption savings, auto and home insurance, and complementary health etc. It is said that Carrefour Banque manages a global loan portfolio of EUR 2.7 billion and a total of EUR 2.3 billion held for its savers.
4.2 The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on July 3, 2018, according to the information received from the Registrar. As the language of the registration agreement is English, the language of the proceeding shall be conducted in English. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website imitating that of the Complainant’s banking login page. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in an attempt to fraudulently obtain confidential information from its customers. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
5.1 The Complainant owns numerous CARREFOUR trademark registrations around the world, which enjoy a worldwide reputation. In particular, the Complainant owns the following trademark registrations:
- 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 and 38; and
- International Trademark CARREFOUR No. 1010661 registered on April16, 2009, covering services in class 35.
In addition, the Complainant is said to operate, among others, the domain name reflecting its trademark, , registered on October 25, 1995. The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark in that the Disputed Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. It is argued that the Complainant’s trademark has been considered to be well-known or famous by numerous previous UDRP panels. See Carrefour v. Ali Fetouh, Fasten,WIPO Case No. D2017-0089. It is further asserted that the addition of the French generic and descriptive terms “mon” and “compte”, which can be translated into English as “my account”, does absolutely nothing to prevent a confusing similarity finding. It is also argued that the addition of hyphens to disputed domain names is insufficient to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark because the dominant portion of the Disputed Domain Name is the Complainant’s trademark. In this regard, reliance is placed on TREDNET, Direct Distribution International Ltd (“DDI”) v. WhoisGuard Namecheap /BODYPOWER,WIPO Case No. D2012-2001. Also, it is asserted that the mere addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.info” is of no consequence when conducting a confusing similarity test, following LEGO Juris A/S v. L Dot InFo, ,WIPO Case No. D2012-0351.
5.2 The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name in that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has the Respondent been authorized by the Complainant to use and register its trademarks, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, it is argued that 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. This is more the case as the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a phishing website, reproducing the Complainant’s logo, name and all graphic elements of the official website of the Complainant at “”. The imitation website it is said, requests clients’ identification number, password, personal data together with their credit card number. In addition, clients are invited to reveal their data by calling to a phone number and, by providing the RIO (“relevé d’identité opérateur”) code, allowing the control of the user’s mobile number. As a result of the foregoing, it is argued that Internet users are likely to wrongly believe that this is an official website of the Complainant and, as such, this circumstance does not represent a genuine use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. In addition, it is said, that the Respondent may have registered the Disputed Domain Name by providing a fake address to the Registrar in order to be unidentifiable; therefore, such conduct further demonstrates that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.
5.3 On the question of bad faith, it is contended that the Respondent could not have been possibly unaware of the Complainant’s prior existing rights in the CARREFOUR trademark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, it is submitted that bad faith is established when the Respondent knew or ought to have known of the Complainant’s trademark rights and still went on to register the Disputed Domain Name in which it had no rights (see Research In Motion Limited v. Privacy Locked LLC/Nat Collicot,WIPO Case No. D2009-0320). It is further submitted that, in view of the worldwide reputation of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark, it is impossible to infer that the Respondent did not have the Complainant’s trademark activities in mind when registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant further refers to section 2 of the Policy to assert that when a person seeks to register a domain name, that person represents to the Registrar that to his knowledge the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon the rights of other persons. Also, it is observed that a quick trademark search on CARREFOUR would have revealed to the Respondent the existence of the Complainant and its trademark. Therefore, it is submitted that the Respondent’s failure to conduct this search is a contributory factor to its bad faith motive, following Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling,WIPO Case No. D2008-0226. To further support the allegation of bad faith use by the Respondent, the Complainant argues that since the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a phishing website reproducing the Complainant’s logo, name and all other graphic elements of the official website, it is more likely than not that the Respondent’s primary motive for registering the Disputed Domain Name was to exploit the Complainant’s trademark rights through the creation of initial interest confusion. With further reference to the phishing scheme engaged in by the Respondent, with intent to deceiving consumers into revealing personal and financial information, the Complainant submits that there is no clearer evidence of bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name, following OLX, Inc. v. J.D. Mason Singh,WIPO Case No. D2014-1037. B. Respondent
5.4 The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions; therefore, the Panel shall draw such adverse inferences from the failure of the Respondent to reply as it considers appropriate. 6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed in this administrative proceeding the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark of the Complainant;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.2 As expressly stated in the Policy, the Complainant must establish the existence of each of these three elements in any administrative proceeding. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 The Panel accepts that the Complainant is the registered owner of numerous trademark registrations for the CARREFOUR trademark, as evidenced by documents annexed to the Complaint. The Panel also finds without any hesitation that upon a visual examination, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark. Clearly, the Disputed Domain Name incorporates entirely the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds also that the mere addition of a hyphen, and/or descriptive terms such as “mon” and “compte” and or the gTLD “.info”, does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity when conducting a confusing similarity examination. In this regard, the Panel places reliance on the detailed discussion on the test for confusing similarity at sections 1.7, 1.8 and 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). See also further in this regard the decisions in TREDNET, Direct Distribution International Ltd (“DDI”) v. WhoisGuard Namecheap/BODYPOWER, supra; LEGO Juris A/S v. Dot InFO, , supra and Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Luo Li,WIPO Case No. D2012-1604.
6.4 The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
6.5 The Panel equally finds that the Respondent has failed to provide any evidence or circumstance that establishes that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name within the ambit of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. As argued by the Complainant, the Respondent has not been authorised or licensed by the Complainant to utilize or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark; nor has the Respondent produced any evidence to demonstrate that the Respondent has commonly been known by the Complainant’s Trademark CARREFOUR or ever been affiliated or associated with the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent has also failed to demonstrate use of or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The fact that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a phishing website similar to the Complainant’s website where consumers are deceived into revealing personal and financial information is activity that cannot be described as a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name within the ambit of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. See in this regard Birkenstock Orthopädie GmBH & Co Kg v. Chen Yanbing,WIPO Case No. D2010-0746.
6.6 Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that the Respondent does not possess any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name as stipulated in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6.7 On the question of bad faith registration and use, the Panel equally finds that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith and engaged in bad faith use. The Panel has without hesitation taken into account a number of irrefutable factors arising from the unchallenged contentions of the Complainant. Firstly, the Panel finds that the addition of the French words, namely “mon” and “compte”, which can be translated in English as “my account”, to the Disputed Domain Name evinces a clear intention to exploit the Complainant’s worldwide reputation for commercial gain by relying on initial interest confusion. Clearly, as argued by the Complainant, a simple trademark search would have revealed to the Respondent the Complainant’s prior trademark rights as at the date the Respondent elected to create the Disputed Domain Name. Thus, a failure to conduct that search is a contributory factor to the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use, following Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling, supra. Secondly, the Complainant’s international registered trademarks date back to the year 2006 while the Complainant has been operating its domain name reflecting its trademark at since 1995, yet the Respondent decided to create the Disputed Domain Name on July 3, 2018. Therefore, as the Complainant knew or ought to have known of the reputation of the Complainant in this day and age of the Internet and advancement in information technology, the Panel finds that it is unbelievable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant and its registered trademark at the time of creation of the Disputed Domain Name. Thirdly, as the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a phishing website imitating the Complainant’s website but set up to deceive consumers to reveal their personal and financial information, the Panel finds that this conduct is the clearest evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith, following OLX, Inc. v. J. D. Mason Singh, supra. Fourthly, since it is said that the Respondent either provided a fake, incomplete or wrong address, thereby displaying a motive to remain unidentifiable, this is further evidence of bad faith use which is in fact a breach of the Respondent’s registration agreement. Fifthly, as indicated in paragraph 5.4 above, the Panel has drawn adverse inferences from the failure of the Respondent to respond to the contentions of the Complainant in this proceeding.
6.8 The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith and engaged in bad faith use. 7. Decision
7.1 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.
Ike Ehiribe
Sole Panelist
Date: November 7, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy