The Complainant is Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc of Ivry-sur-Seine, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America (“United States”) / Zachary Palacios of Chicago, Illinois, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 8, 2018. On October 9, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 9, 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 October 10, 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 October 11, 2018.
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 October 15, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 4, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 5, 2018.
The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on November 7, 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 operates the second largest chain of book and record stores in France and a chain of super- and hypermarkets in France and several other European countries. It owns multiple trademark registration incorporating its trademark ESPACE CULTUREL E.LECLERC, including the French trademark No. 11 3865028 filed on October 7, 2011.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 16, 2018 and redirects to the website "", which is a German term for "share deposit". 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's registered mark except that the letter “E” followed by a period (“E.”) between the elements “culturel” and “leclerc” in the Complainant's trademark is omitted and the terms “espace”, “culturel” and “leclerc” are connected by hyphens in the disputed domain name, whereas such terms are divided by blank spaces in the Complainant’s trademark ESPACE CULTUREL E. LECLERC.
In the Panel’s view, such minimal differences are not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.
The use of the disputed domain name for a commercial website offering banking services cannot be considered as use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Based on the Complainant’s credible contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under the circumstances of this case, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that there is sufficient evidence that the Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its banking website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website, which fulfills paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
In summary, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, thus fulfilling 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.
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: November 19, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy