The Complainant is Carrefour of Boulogne-Billancourt, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Jacky Durand, Carrefour Sa of Paris, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 28, 2018. On September 28, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On the same day, 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 October 11, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 31, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 2, 2018.
The Center appointed Emmanuelle Ragot as the sole panelist in this matter on November 14, 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
The Complainant is a company which is one of the leading retailers in Europe and the second-largest retailer in the world operating more than 12,300 stores and ecommerce sites in more than 30 countries.
The Complainant employs more than 38,000 people worldwide on three major markets: Europe, Latin America and Asia and generates more than 53% of its sales outside France.
The Complainant owns a large portfolio of well-known trademarks CARREFOUR registrations around the world.
The Complainant is in particular the owner of the following trademark registrations:
- French trademark CARREFOUR No. 1487274, registered on September 2, 1988, duly renewed, that covers services in classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45;
- European Union trademark CARREFOUR No. 008779498, filed on December 23, 2009, registered on July 13, 2010 and covering services in class 35;
- European Union trademark CARREFOUR No. 005178371, filed on June 20, 2006, registered on August 30, 2007, duly renewed and covering goods and services in classes 9, 35 and 38.
The Complainant operates, among other, domain name reflecting its trademark CARREFOUR in order to promote its goods and services:
registered on October 25, 1995.
The Domain Name was registered on March 27, 2018. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark CARREFOUR.
The Complainant is the registered owner of the trademarks CARREFOUR in numerous jurisdictions and which enjoy a worldwide reputation.
The Respondent is in any way related to the Complainant or any CARREFOUR affiliate and is not authorized to use CARREFOUR trademarks. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name .
The Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(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 was registered and being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the CARREFOUR Trademarks.
The threshold test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the domain name itself determining whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The trademark would generally be recognizable within the domain name.
In this case, the Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR which previous panels have considered to be “well-known” or “famous” (Carrefour v. Jan Everno, The Management Group II,WIPO Case No. D2017-0586; Carrefour v. Ali Fetouh, Fasateen,WIPO Case No. D2017-0089; Carrefour v. Tony Mancini, USDIET Whoisguard, Inc,WIPO Case No. D2015-0962; Carrefour v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd; WIPO Case No. D2015-0769; Carrefour v. Park KyeongSook,WIPO Case No. D2014-1425; Carrefour v. Yujinhua, WIPO Case No. D2014-0257; Carrefour v. Karin Krueger,WIPO Case No. D2013-2002; Carrefour S.A. v. Patrick Demestre,WIPO Case No. D2011-2248; Carrefour v. groupe Carrefour;WIPO Case No. D2008-1996; Carrefour SA v. Eric LangloisWIPO Case No. D2007-0067).
In many UDRP decisions, the panels considered that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark (Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. mei xudong,WIPO Case No. D2013-0150; RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. InvisibleR, Domain Admin,WIPO Case No. D2010-1059).
The disputed domain name reproduces entirely the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR associated with the French generic terms “centrale” and “achat” which define the activities of Carrefour as a whole. See also WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
The extension “.com” is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name (Accor v. Noldc Inc, WIPO Case No. D2005-0016). The mere adjunction of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) such as “.com” is irrelevant as it is well established that the gTLD is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity (L’Oréal v Tina Smith,WIPO Case No. D2013-0820; Titoni AG v. Runxin Wang, WIPO Case No. D2008-0820; Alstom v. Itete Peru S.AWIPO Case No. D2009-0877).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark CARREFOUR in which the Complainant has rights, and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the following:
(i) Before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering good or services; or
(ii) The respondent has been commonly known by the domain name; even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) The respondent is making a legitimate non - commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers, or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint. Consequently, it did not provide any evidence or allege any circumstance to establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name .
The Respondent has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use and register its trademark CARREFOUR or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the aforesaid trademark i.e. the Domain Name .
The Respondent did not make a fair use or noncommercial use of the Domain Name . The Panel notes that the website at the Domain Name is an inactive website.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in relation to the Domain Name , which the Respondent has not rebutted.
The conditions of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have therefore been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out examples of circumstances that will be considered by a Panel to be evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name. It provides that:
“For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be the present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or [the respondent has] acquired the domain name primarily for the purposes of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s web site or location.”
Given the widely well-known character of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademarks, the Panel finds that the Respondent could not ignore and would have been aware of the Complainant’s rights CARREFOUR trademarks when it registered the Domain Name .
Bad faith can be found where respondent “knew or should have known” of the Complainant’s trademark rights and, nevertheless registered a domain name in which he had no right or legitimate interest (Research In Motion Limited v. Privacy Locked LLC/Nat Collicot,WIPO Case No. D2009-0320; The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,WIPO Case No. D2009-0113).
The Complainant is well-known throughout the world and its CARREFOUR trademark is also widely-known.
The Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the Domain Name . The Panel notes that the website at the Domain Name is currently inactive. The Domain Name appears thus to be passively held.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith to disrupt the Complainant’s activities or otherwise capitalize on the Complainant’s fame and reputation.
Considering the circumstances of this case, the Panel considers that the Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the third element of UDRP. 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.
Emmanuelle Ragot
Sole Panelist
Date: November 23, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy