The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France.
The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Mep Foster, France.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 10, 2021. On August 12, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 August 17, 2021 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 August 23, 2021.
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 August 25, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 14, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 17, 2021.
The Center appointed Isabelle Leroux as the sole panelist in this matter on September 23, 2021. 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is a worldwide leader in retail and a pioneer of the concept of hypermarkets back in 1968. The Complainant operates more than 12.000 stores in more than 30 countries worldwide.
The Complainant owns numerous trademark rights worldwide for the CARREFOUR sign, inter alia the following trademarks:
- International trademark CARREFOUR No. 351147, registered on October 2, 1968, duly renewed, and designating goods in international classes 01 to 34;
- International trademark CARREFOUR No. 353849, registered on February 28, 1969, duly renewed and designating services in international classes 35 to 42;
- Icelandic trademark CARREFOUR No. V0076027, registered on April 16, 2009, duly renewed and designating services in international class 35.
In addition, the Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names identical to its CARREFOUR trademarks, including in particular,
The disputed domain name is
The disputed domain name resolves to a safety warning notice of the browser indicating that the associated website has been reported as “potentially harmful”.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant(i) The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is highly similar to its earlier well-known trademark CARREFOUR that is entirely incorporated therein and that the addition of the terms “cle” (French for “key”) and “secure” (French for “safe”), cannot diminish the likelihood of confusion. To the contrary, the words “cle secure” refer to the idea that the website that could be found via the disputed domain name would offer locksmith services
(ii) The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name since that the Respondent is not known by such name neither does it has any trademark rights in such sign.
The Complainant has never granted any license or authorization to the Respondent on the use of the trademark CARREFOUR. Furthermore, there is no indication of a bona fide offering of goods or services.
(iii) The Complainant finally contends that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith as the Respondent cannot ignore the Complainant’s earlier rights on the well-known CARREFOUR trademark at the time of the registration.
According to the Complainant, the registration and the use of the disputed domain name are clearly intended to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion so that they would falsely believe that they were dealing with the Complainant.
(iv) The Complainant therefore requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsParagraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following elements in order to obtain relief:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 names; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
These elements will be examined in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has provided evidence to establish its earlier trademark rights on the sign CARREFOUR that is incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name. Such reproduction is typically considered sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the first element.
The addition of the descriptive terms “cle” (“key” in French) and “secure”, combined with the trademark CARREFOUR by the use of hyphens does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The Panel notes that such combination may create a risk of association that, the disputed domain name would be perceived by the public as offered by or related to Complainant’s activities in retail sector since locks, keys and locksmith services may be found in supermarkets, hypermarkets or superstores.
Furthermore, the gTLD “.com” does not affect the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s earlier trademarks.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s earlier trademarks. The first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsNumerous UDRP panels have found that, even though the Complainant bears the general burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
Hence after the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it will be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP when the Respondent fails to submit a response.
In this case, the Complainant brings forward the following elements:
- No license or authorization has been granted by the Complainant to the Respondent;
- The Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name, nor does it have any trademark rights on such name;
- The Complainant has no relationship whatsoever with the Respondent.
In addition, the Complainant has provided evidence on the fact that the website associated with the disputed domain name shows a safety warning notice indicating that the access has been blocked, due to the risk that such page may contain malicious software or phishing schemes, aiming at obtaining Internet users’ personal data, such as bank details and password.
Therefore, there is no indication of bona fide offering of goods or services.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has not proved otherwise, since he did not file any response.
Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has been satisfied.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Complainant’s earlier trademarks have been recognized as well known by UDRP decisions. Accordingly, the Panel considers that the Respondent could not plausibly ignore the existence of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademarks at the time the disputed domain name was registered and finds that the registration was made in bad faith. See, in particular, Carrefour v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0155401638 / Binya Rteam,WIPO Case No. D2019-2895; Carrefour v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo,WIPO Case No. D2019-2610; Carrefour v. rabie nolife,WIPO Case No. D2019-0673; 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.
Furthermore, the Panel finds that, as a resident in France, the Respondent’s efforts to conceal his identity through a privacy proxy service with an address located in Iceland can be construed as further evidence that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. See TTT Moneycorp Limited. v. Diverse Communications, WIPO Case No. D2001-0725. And, as a French individual he should have known the famous mark CARREFOUR.
As to the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name resolves to a website with potential security risks, according to the browser’s safety warning notice.
According to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.4, “the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith”. Such purposes include sending email, phishing, identity theft, or malware distribution. The previous UDRP panel has found in particular that “the fact that the webpages were blocked by independent third parties demonstrates that they represented a risk to consumers and Internet users”. See Carrefour SA v. dreux denis / denis cloud,WIPO Case No. D2021-0276.
The Panel thus agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name may have been intended for harmful purposes.
In the absence of any response to the complaint, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith, so that the third and final element of the Policy is met.
7. DecisionFor 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
Isabelle Leroux
Sole Panelist
Date: October 7, 2021