The Complainant is Sodexo, France, represented by Areopage, France.
The Respondent is May Bae, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 13, 2020. On July 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 15, 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 July 20, 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 July 24, 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 July 27, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 16, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 17, 2020. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on August 25, 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 is one of the largest companies in the world specialized in foodservices and facilities management, with 470,000 employees serving 100 million consumers in 67 countries. From 1966 to 2008, the Complainant promoted its business under the SODEXHO mark and trade name. In 2008, the Complainant simplified the spelling of its mark and name to SODEXO. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for SODEXO, inter alia, International trademark registration no. 964615 registered on January 8, 2008 and International trademark registration no. 1240316 registered on October 23, 2014. The Complainant is present in many countries, including in United Kingdom where the Respondent appears to be located. The Domain Name was registered on January 2, 2020. At the time of the Complaint and the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to a web page with sponsored links to third parties. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations and that the trademark has a strong, international reputation. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is almost identical to the mark and company name SODEXO, save the addition of an extra “X”. In the Complainant’s view, such a difference corresponds to an obvious misspelling of the SODEXO mark that may be made by an Internet user. Such intentional misspelling is characteristic of typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the Domain Name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name as it has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant believes the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s activity and trademark, due to the well-known character and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark. By registering the Domain Name, the Respondent was seeking to create a likelihood of confusion with the trademark and exploit the confusion with the well-known trademark SODEXO to attract Internet users and to incite them to click on third commercial links. The bad faith is further underlined by the fact that the Domain Name was anonymously registered. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark SODEXO. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, with the addition of the letter “X” in the middle of the trademark. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”; see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of its mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to resolve to a web page with sponsored links to third parties is not bona fide. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Domain Name is almost identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent by registering the Complainant’s trademark in the Domain Name was seeking to create a likelihood of confusion with the trademark to mislead third parties. The registration under a privacy service may further indicate bad faith. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of 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 Domain Name, Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: August 27, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy