The Complainant is Carrefour of Boulogne-Billancourt, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Jean-Pierre Andre Preca of Vitrolles, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed 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 December 14, 2018. On December 14, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On December 14, 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 December 18, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 7, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 9, 2019.
The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on January 21, 2019. 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 global leader in food retail with its headquarters in France. The Complainant was founded in 1958, since then it acquired considerable goodwill and renown both in France as well as worldwide in connection with supermarkets.
The Complainant operates more than 12,300 stores and e-commerce sites in 30 countries.
The Complainant currently operates on three major markets: Europe, Latin America and Asia.
In addition, Carrefour Proximité France is an affiliate of Carrefour which has more than 3,800 shops.
The Complainant owns numerous CARREFOUR trademark registrations around the world. Among others, the Complainant is the owner of the following trademark Registrations:
- French trademark CARREFOUR No. 1487274, registered on September 2, 1988;
- European Union trademark CARREFOUR No. 008779498, registered on July 13, 2010; and
- European Union trademark CARREFOUR No. 005178371, registered on August 30, 2007.
Furthermore, the Complainant operates, among many others, the following domain names reflecting its trademark.
- registered on October 25, 1995;
- registered on June 23, 2005.
The Disputed Doman Name was registered on June 12, 2018.
The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a blank page with the mention “www. - Under Construction”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR.
Moreover, the Disputed Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.
The addition of the generic word “proximite” which means “nearby” in English is insufficient to give distinctiveness to the Disputed Domain Name. What is more, this addition is like to cause confusion since the term clearly refers to the retail services of the Complainant’s affiliate. The same happens with the addition of the geographical term “france”.
Furthermore, the addition of a hyphen in the Disputed Domain Name is insufficient to distinguish it from the Complainant’s trademarks, since the dominant portion of the Disputed Domain Name is CARREFOUR trademark. Moreover, the addition of the hyphen does not negate the confusing similarity.
Finally, regarding the “.com” Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in the Disputed Domain Name, it does not affect the likelihood of confusion.
For all the reasons above, the Complainant submits that it is likely that the Disputed Domain Name could mislead Internet users into thinking that it is associated with the Complainant. Rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way, nor authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use and register its trademark, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating its trademark.
Moreover, the Respondent cannot claim prior rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name as the Complainant’s trademark preceded the registration of the Disputed Domain Name for years.
What is more, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the name “Carrefour”.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has never used the Disputed Domain Name for a legitimate purpose.
Thus, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Disputed Domain Name. Registration and use in bad faith
The Complainant contends that it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when he registered the Disputed Domain Name.
Moreover, the combination of the Disputed Domain Name reproducing the Complainant’s trademark associated with the term “proximite”, which is related to the Complainant’s retail services, suggests that the Respondent had the Complainant’s trademark and activities in mind at the time of the registration.
Furthermore, the Complainant’s trademarks registrations significantly predate the registration date of the Disputed Domain Name, which has been registered in 2018.
The Complainant’s submits that a quick trademark search would have revealed to the Respondent the existence of the Complainant and its trademarks.
In addition, the Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a blank page with the legend “www. - Under Construction”.
What is more, the Complainant alleges that the fact that an email server has been configured on the Disputed Domain Name indicates that the Respondent is intending to or has engaged in a phishing scheme.
Finally, the Complainant argues that the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter is also a strong indication of bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Name in this case:
(i) The Disputed 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 Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it has trademarks rights over the term CARREFOUR.
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark. The Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name.
Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name contains the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark in its entirety; the addition of the terms “proximite” and “france” and the use of hyphens do not alter the assessment of confusing similarity. Moreover, the addition of the TLD “.com” does not change this finding, since the TLD is generally disregarded in such an assessment of confusingly similarity.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name:
(i). Before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) You (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) You are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service at issue.
There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the trademarks. The Complainant has prior rights in the trademarks which precede the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name by several years.
The Respondent has failed to show that he has acquired any trademark rights with respect of the Disputed Domain Name or that the Disputed Domain Name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests, but did not do so.
As such the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
The Complainant has used its trademarks long before the Disputed Domain Name was registered.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 12, 2018, while the Complainant’s CARREFOUR Trademark Registration No. 1487274 was registered on September 2, 1988.
The Complainant’s trademarks are well known as it has been recognized by previous decisions under the Policy (See Carrefour v. Jane Casares, NA,WIPO Case No. D2018-0976; Carrefour v. WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard Protected / Robert Jurek, Katrin Kafut, Purchasing clerk, Starship Tapes & Records,WIPO Case No. D2017-2533; 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. Yunjinhua,WIPO Case No. D2014-0257).
In light of this, the Respondent had evidently knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks when he registered the Disputed Domain Name. The addition to the Disputed Domain Name of the terms “proximite” and “france” to the well-known trademark CARREFOUR is further evidence of bad faith since the term “proximite” clearly refers to the retail services of the Complainant’s affiliate. The same happens with the addition of the geographical term “france”, the jurisdiction where the Complainant was incorporated originally.
The Disputed Domain Name is currently inactive, except for the legend “www. - Under Construction”. As it has been the case in several previous UDRP cases, the fact that the Disputed Domain Name is currently inactive does not prevent a finding of bad faith use and does not change the Panel’s views in this respect.
In the case at hand, in view of the Respondent’s registration of a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark, the absence of any documented rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Disputed Domain Name and his failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s lack of use of the Disputed Domain Name also amounts to bad faith.
Therefore, taking all circumstances into account and for all above reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and using the Disputed Domain Name 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 Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: January 24, 2019.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy