The Complainant is Sodexo, France, represented by Areopage, France.
The Respondent is Angela Douglas, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 13, 2020. On May 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 14, 2020, 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 May 15, 2020 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 May 19, 2020. 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 June 2, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 22, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 23, 2020. The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on July 1, 2020. 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 was founded in 1966 in France and originally operated under the name “Sodexho Alliance”. In 2008 it became known as Sodexo and since that time it has provided restaurant and catering services and facility management, such as reception, housekeeping, security, laundry, waste management, space management, benefit and reward programs, childcare, tutoring and adult education around the world, all under the SODEXO trademark. The Complainant has 470,000 employees serving 100 million consumers in 67 countries. Its revenues in 2019 reached EUR 22 billion. The Complainant owns many trademark registrations for the trademark SODEXO, including: International Trademark Registration No. 964615 for SODEXO and design registered on January 8, 2008; French Trademark Registration No. 073513766 for SODEXO and design registered on July 16, 2007; International Trademark Registration No. 1240316 for SODEXO registered on October 23, 2014; European Union Trade mark Registration No. 008346462 for SODEXO filed on June 8, 2009 and registered on February 1, 2010; European Union Trade mark Registration No. 006104657 for SODEXO and design filed on July 16, 2007 and registered on June 27, 2008. The Complainant also owns several domain names, including: The disputed domain name was registered on April 24, 2020. At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name was inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that the disputed domain is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known registered trademark. The disputed domain is almost identical to the registered trademark SODEXO except for the addition of the word “world”. The addition of a word to a registered trademark does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the SODEXO name, and is not affiliated or associated with the Complainant. The Complainant has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to use the Complainant’s registered trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in the name of Angela Douglas, Sodexo USA, Inc. The Complainant’s subsidiary Sodexo USA did not register the disputed domain name or authorize anyone else to do so. Accordingly, the Complainant submits that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s rights in the SODEXO trademark, because it registered the disputed domain under the name of the Complainant’s American subsidiary without permission or authority. The disputed domain name at the time the Complaint was filed was inactive, but Complainant submits that the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name in these circumstances is an abusive. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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 Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the trademark SODEXO by virtue of the registrations listed in paragraph 4 of this Decision. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as the disputed domain name incorporates the entire SODEXO trademark. The addition of the word “world”, does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Useful commentary relating to the burden of proof for rights or legitimate interests can be found at the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1: “While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of ‘proving a negative’, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element”. Based on the evidence filed in this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case with respect to the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant clearly owns rights in the SODEXO trademarks as noted in section 4 of this Decision. The evidence filed in this proceeding, namely that the disputed domain name was registered in the name of Angela Douglas, Sodexo USA, Inc., supports the fact that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent’s passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name is not considered a bona fide offering of goods and services under the Policy. In the circumstances of this case, the composition of the disputed domain name, incorporating the Complainant’s trademark and the addition of the dictionary word “world” is intended to capitalize on the Complainant’s worldwide goodwill and reputation. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. In this situation, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to bring forward evidence of rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent registered the disputed domain name to divert Internet users seeking the Complainant’s website and services for purposes of monetary gain. The registration of the disputed domain name was clearly abusive, targeting the Complainant’s SODEXO trademarks which were well known long before the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has attempted to misappropriate Complainant’s identity by registering the disputed domain name in the name of the Complainant’s subsidiary Sodexo USA, Inc. This is compelling evidence of bad faith under the Policy. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. UDRP panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Noting the circumstances of this case, including the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark and the implausibility of any good faith use, the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has therefore satisfied the requirements under 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 Christopher J. Pibus
Sole Panelist
Date: July 10, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy