The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France.
The Respondents are Contact Privacy Inc. Customer, Canada / Jacques Solere, France, Ramel, France, Mra, France, cobalt, France, cobalt, France, Cavanus, France, Alain Pamart, France, Chila Eric, France, walker, Finland, Guilemette, France, Cohen, France, Aktz, France, Alev, France, Jacques, France, Bruce, France, Paulo, France, Alvez, and Albert, France.
2. The Domain Names and RegistrarThe disputed domain names (the “Domain Names” or individually a “Domain Name”)
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 10, 2021. On September 13, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On September 15, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 16, 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 a First Amended Complaint on September 21, 2021. In addition, the Center sent an email communication in both French and English to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding on September 16, 2021. The Complainant replied on September 21, 2021, requesting English to be the language of the proceeding and submitting the Second Amended Complaint including the arguments for the Language of Proceedings and consolidation arguments. The Respondent did not submit any comments.
The Center verified that the Complaint together amended Complaints 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 in French and in English, and the proceedings commenced on September 23, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 13, 2021.
The Center received a communication on October 6, 2021, from a third party to which the Center acknowledged receipt on October 7, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to Panel Appointment on October 14, 2021.
The Center appointed Vincent Denoyelle as the sole panelist in this matter on October 21, 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 BackgroundGiven that no Response was filed, the following facts are based on the submissions in the Complaint and the Annexes to the Complaint.
The Complainant is a multinational retail company headquartered in France. The Complainant is also active in the banking sector, initially through its “Pass” card, launched in 1981, 40 years ago.
The Complainant is the owner of several trade marks for CARREFOUR including in France where the Respondent appears to be based. The Complainant’s CARREFOUR trade marks include the following:
- International Trade Mark registration No. 351147 for CARREFOUR, registered on October 2, 1968.
The Complainant is also the owner of the following trade marks:
- French Trade Mark registration No. 3585968 for BANQUE CARREFOUR, registered on July 2, 2008; and
- International Trade Mark registration No. 719166 for CARREFOUR PASS, registered on August 18, 1999.
The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names reflecting its CARREFOUR trade mark.
The Domain Names do not resolve to active websites and were registered on the dates shown in the table below:
Domain Name
Registration date
August 11, 2021
August 12, 2021
August 14, 2021
August 14, 2021
August 14, 2021
August 12, 2021
August 10, 2021
September 1, 2021
September 1, 2021
August 18, 2021
August 12, 2021
August 14, 2021
September 1, 2021
August 13, 2021
August 16, 2021
August 12, 2021
August 31, 2021
August 14, 2021
August 19, 2021
August 27, 2021
September 2, 2021
August 28, 2021
August 29, 2021
August 11, 2021
August 11, 2021
August 12, 2021
August 11, 2021
August 17, 2021
August 12, 2021
August 12, 2021
<40ans-carrefour-banque-bon-anniversaire.com>
August 14, 2021
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the CARREFOUR trade mark in which the Complainant has rights, as the Domain Names all incorporate the entire CARREFOUR trade mark and some of them also reproduce the BANQUE CARREFOUR or CARREFOUR PASS trade marks of the Complainant with the mere addition of French terms such as “fete”, “anniversaire”, or “40ans”. The Complainant considers that such additions do not prevent the confusing similarity between the Domain Names and the Complainant’s trade marks. The Complainant also contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not change the overall impression of the Domain Names being connected to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trade mark.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights in “carrefour” or “banque carrefour” or “carrefour pass” and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant to use its CARREFOUR trade mark. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has not, before the original filing of the Complaint, used or made preparations to use any of the Domain Names in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services as some of the Domain Names trigger a security alert for malicious content. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Names with full knowledge of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trade mark and the Complainant refers to prior UDRP panels finding that the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trade mark is well-known. The Complainant submits that the Respondent acquired and is using the Domain Names to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s earlier registered trade mark. The Complainant also points to the fact that the Respondent registered many Domain Names over a short period of time to conclude that there is a pattern of abusive domain name registrations. The Complainant concludes that the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 – Preliminary Issue: Language of ProceedingsPursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”.
In the present case, the registration agreement appears to be French as confirmed by the Registrar and the Complaint was submitted in English. The Complainant submitted arguments to explain that it drafted the initial Complaint in English based on the assumption that the language of the registration agreement was English, the Registrar being based in the United States, and that requesting that the Complainant translate the Complaint would impose a great deal of additional expense and delay.
The Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint in French and in English. The Respondent did not comment or respond. The Respondent was given an opportunity to comment on or to oppose the Complainant’s arguments.
The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent reasonably understands the nature of the Proceedings and finds that to request the Complainant to translate the Complaint would cause potential unfairness and unwarranted delay in light of the overall circumstances including (i) the harmful nature of many websites associated with the Domain Names and the resulting cybersecurity threat, (ii) the complete lack of reaction of the Respondent after having been given a fair chance to comment, (iii) the fact that at the outset it was legitimate to believe the registration agreement would have been in English, and (iv) the fact that there are clear irregularities in registration data for all Domain Names which means that the actual Respondent’s details, including location, cannot be trusted.
In light of these circumstances, the Panel finds that it would not be unfair to proceed in a language other than that of the Registration Agreement and the Panel is satisfied that the Language of Proceedings should be English.
6.2 – Preliminary Issue: Consolidation of ComplaintGiven that the Complaint was filed against multiple Respondents, the Panel looked at whether (i) the Domain Names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and whether (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. The Panel also took into consideration procedural efficiency.
Based on the evidence produced and on the Panel’s review of each Domain Name and associated error or warning messages triggered by the Panel’s Internet search engine when trying to access the websites associated with the Domain Names, the Panel decides to allow the consolidation in light of the overall circumstances and in particular, (i) the fact that all Domain Names were registered over a very short period of time and through the same Registrar, (ii) similar patterns of irregularities in registration data including the deliberate use of incorrect registration data including similar addresses for some of the Domain Names, (iii) similar pattern of use of the Domain Names whereby none of them currently point to active content and the Domain Names all trigger a security warning or an error message, and (iv) naming patterns in the Domain Names whereby they all reproduce the exact CARREFOUR trade mark of the Complainant with the addition of similar terms in the same language.
6.3 – Substantive AnalysisIn order to prevail the Complainant must substantiate that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met for each Domain Name, namely:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In the case of default by a party, as is the case here, paragraph 14(b) of the Rules makes it clear that if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.
In the absence of a Response from the Respondent whereby the Respondent did not object to any of the contentions from the Complainant, the Panel will have to base its decision on the basis of the Complaint and supporting Annexes.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarIn light of the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has substantiated that it holds valid trade mark rights in the CARREFOUR trade mark, which is reproduced in its entirety in the Domain Names.
The second point that has to be considered is whether the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the CARREFOUR trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
At the second level, the Domain Names all incorporate the entire CARREFOUR trade mark and some of them also reproduce the BANQUE CARREFOUR or CARREFOUR PASS trade marks of the Complainant with the mere addition of French terms such as “fete”, “anniversaire”, or “40ans”. The Panel finds that the well-known CARREFOUR trade mark of the Complainant is instantly recognizable in all the Domain Names and that the various terms added to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trade mark do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity arising from the incorporation of the Complainant’s exact CARREFOUR trade mark in the Domain Names.
Then there is the addition of the gTLD “.com”. As is generally accepted, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” is merely a technical registration requirement and as such is typically disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.
Thus, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsParagraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out relevant circumstances that could demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, namely:
“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate [the respondent’s] rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, [the respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) ha[s] been commonly known by the domain name, even if [the respondent] ha[s] acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) [the respondent] is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.”
Numerous previous panels have found under the UDRP that once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to rebut the showing by providing evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Having reviewed the Complainant’s assertions and evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.
The Complainant has stated that the Respondent has no rights in the Domain Names and that it has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to make any use of its CARREFOUR trade mark. There is no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by either of the Domain Names.
The absence of use or rather the apparently malevolent underlying use of the Domain Names and associated websites, as suggested by the security warnings triggered when the Panel tried to access the websites associated with the Domain Names cannot be considered bona fide, legitimate, or fair.
Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a number of relevant non-exhaustive circumstances, which can be deemed to constitute evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith, namely:
“(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or acquired [a disputed] domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.”
Given the circumstances described in the Complaint and the documentary evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Domain Names were registered in bad faith.
The Domain Names reproduce the exact CARREFOUR trade mark of the Complainant and this cannot be a coincidence. The Complainant has provided ample evidence of the substantial renown of the CARREFOUR trade mark, so the fact that the Respondent decided to register the Domain Names reproducing this term strongly suggests that the Respondent had the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trade mark in mind and targeted it specifically.
This is even more likely given (i) the choice of terms added to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trade mark in the Domain Names which are closely related to the Complainant, (ii) the fact that the Domain Names were registered relatively recently and many years after the registration of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trade mark, and (iii) the clear and deliberate irregularities in registration data for the Domain Names.
Thus, the Panel finds that the Domain Names were registered in bad faith.
As for use of the Domain Names in bad faith, given the circumstances described in the Complaint, the documentary evidence provided by the Complainant, and the brief verification carried out by the Panel of the websites associated with the Domain Names, the Panel is satisfied that the Domain Names are used in bad faith.
As the Panel was able to confirm, the websites associated with a number of the Domain Names trigger a security warning (such as “OUTBOUND SPYWARE”, “MALICIOUS SITE BLOCKED!”, “Deceptive site ahead”). This type of malevolent use of the Domain Names can only be seen as use in bad faith of the Domain Names.
In any event, passive use itself would not prevent a finding of the Respondent’s bad faith given the overall circumstances here, noting in particular the renown of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trade mark and the Respondent’s default.
Furthermore, the current use of the Domain Names constitutes a cybersecurity threat hanging over the Complainant and the Complainant’s customers or potential customers.
The fact that the Respondent chose not to object to the Complainant’s assertions can only reinforce the Panel’s view that the Domain Names are used in bad faith.
In addition, the fact that the Respondent not only used a privacy protection service provider to register the Domain Names but also provided blatantly incorrect registration data for each Domain Name demonstrates that the Respondent went to some length to hinder the enforcement efforts of the Complainant and this further supports a finding of bad faith.
Thus, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are being used in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Complainant has met its burden of showing that the Domain Names were registered and are 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 Domain Names
Vincent Denoyelle
Sole Panelist
Date: November 4, 2021