The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France.
The Respondent is Wu Yu, China.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 17, 2021. On August 17, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 19, 2021, 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 22, 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 26, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 15, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 26, 2021.
The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on October 11, 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. It is listed on the Paris Stock Exchange, and in 2018 had a turnover of EUR 76 billion. It operates more than 12,000 stores in more than 30 countries, has over 384,000 employees worldwide, and has 1.3 million daily unique visitors in its stores. The Complainant additionally offers travel, banking, insurance, and ticketing services.
The Complainant owns a large number of trademark registrations throughout the world, including International Trademark Registration No. 351147 (registered on October 2, 1968) for the word trademark CARREFOUR.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 10, 2021. The Complainant has provided a screenshot, taken on August 13, 2021, which it said was of the website resolving from the disputed domain name. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage with links to various websites, the majority of which appear to relate to shopping or finance.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights because: (i) the disputed domain name includes the trademark CARREFOUR followed by the letters of the country code for Egypt (“eg”), a country in which the Complainant is active; (ii) the Internet user of average attention would very likely believe that the disputed domain name originates from the Complainant or is endorsed or sponsored by it for its Egyptian business; and (iii) the use of lower-case letter format and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” are not significant in determining whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because: (i) the Complainant performed searches and found no CARREFOUR trademark owned by any person other than the Complainant; (ii) there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name as an individual, business, or other organization; (iii) the Complainant has not authorized the use of the term “carrefour”, or terms similar thereto, in the disputed domain name in any manner or form; and (iv) the Respondent has not, before the original filing of the Complaint, used or made preparations to use the disputed domain name in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services, but rather has used it to resolve to an active website whose content is unrelated to the Complainant and contains advertisements.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) the Complainant and its trademarks were so widely well known that it is inconceivable that the Respondent ignored the Complainant or its earlier rights to CARREFOUR, and the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name cannot have been accidental and must have been influenced by the fame of the Complainant and its trademark; (ii) the Respondent chose the disputed domain name most likely in the hope and expectation that Internet users searching for the Complainant’s services and products would instead come across the Respondent’s website, and is thereby using it to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark; (iii) the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark registrations significantly predate the registration date of the disputed domain name; and (iv) the Respondent is preventing the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in the corresponding domain name and, by displaying advertisements, the Respondent is intending to earn commercial gain from the disputed domain name.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarOnce the gTLD extension “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark CARREFOUR followed by the letters “eg”. The Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of the letters “eg”, which may be read by many Internet users as a two-letter reference to Egypt, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its CARREFOUR trademark. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel’s own investigation shows that the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a website at which is displayed advertisements for goods and services of entities unrelated to the Complainant. Given the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trademark, such a use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide use nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent has not rebutted this. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant first registered and began using its CARREFOUR word trademark. It is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name ignorant of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark, given that the trademark has been heavily used and that the disputed domain name consists of the trademark with merely the addition of the letters “eg”. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating confusion in the minds of the public as to an association between the website and the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
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
Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: October 25, 2021