The Complainant is Carrefour of Massy, France represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is ICS INC of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 27, 2019. On March 27, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On March 28, 2019, 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 April 4, 2019. Although the case file shows that none of the Center’s electronic communications to the Respondent was received by “domainerwhois@”, being the registrant email address provided by the Registrar (which differed from the privacy shield information in the public WhoIs record), the hard copy notification of the proceedings was successfully delivered to the Respondent in the Cayman Islands on April 8, 2019 and signed for by “Jim MacCallum”. Therefore the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent had sufficient notice of the proceedings. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 24, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 25, 2019.
The Center appointed Philip Argy as the sole panelist in this matter on May 2, 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.
All other administrative requirements have been met. 4. Factual Background
The following key facts, taken from the Complaint, remain uncontested.
The Complainant is Carrefour, a French company that provides financing, savings and insurance solutions through more than 12,300 stores and e-commerce sites in more than 30 countries. Carrefour is a multi-local, multi-format and omni-channel retail group that employs 370,000 people worldwide and generated EUR 88.24 billion in sales revenue in 2017.
The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page with pay-per-click links related to “insurance”. The page displays a link announcing that the Disputed Domain Name is for sale and an MX record evidences an email server also configured on the Disputed Domain Name.
Complainant owns various CARREFOUR trademarks around the world, including a trademark that was registered in 1969. Furthermore, it became registrant of the domain name in 1995.
According to the Registrar’s response to the Center, the Disputed Domain Name was created on December 3, 2018. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s submissions can be summarized as follows – given the absence of a Response the Panel sees no need to set out at length the detailed factual and legal material provided in the Complaint:
1. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous registered trademark CARREFOUR. This is a classic case of typosquatting.
2. The Respondent is neither affiliated with Complainant in any way nor has it been authorized by Complainant to use and register its trademark, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent cannot claim prior rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name as the CARREFOUR trademark precedes the registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
3. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the name CARREFOUR.
4. Nor is there any evidence that the Respondent had made demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. According to section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), previous panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising pay-per-click links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of a complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users.
5. Respondent is capitalizing on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s marks by misleadingly diverting Internet users to its own website.
6. The evidence reveals that an email server has been configured on the Disputed Domain Name, thus creating a risk that Respondent is engaged in the practice of phishing.
7. It is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. Indeed, the composition of the Disputed Domain Name imitating Complainant’s trademark, CARREFOUR, and the references to insurance on the parking page to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves, indicates that Respondent knew about the Complainant and its trademarks. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Despite the absence of a Response the Complainant must discharge its burden of proof on the balance of probabilities. That is to say, the Complainant must make good each of the grounds of the Policy on which it bases its Complaint. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant, as registered proprietor of numerous CARREFOUR trademarks throughout the world, has rights in that trademark. Furthermore, it is self-evident that replacing the “o” with a “u” is typosquatting conduct intended to create a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In the absence of a Response in what is clearly a case of typosquatting it is difficult for the Panel to conclude otherwise than that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. None is claimed, none is apparent from the evidence, and the Complainant denies having provided any authorization for the Respondent to use its mark or anything confusingly similar to its mark.
The Panel finds the second limb of the Policy made out. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The registration of the Disputed Domain Name in December 2018 – almost 50 years after registration of the Complainant’s trademark – makes it quite implausible that the Respondent would not have heard of the Complainant and its trademark. Indeed, given the reference to insurance services on the parking page to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s business and its trademarks at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Name. In those circumstances the Panel finds both the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name to have been 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.
Philip N Argy
Sole Panelist
Date: May 14, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy