The Complainant is Sodexo, France, represented by Areopage, France.
The Respondent is 杨智超 (Zhichao Yang), China.
2. The Domain Names and RegistrarThe disputed domain names
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 28, 2021. On December 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On December 31, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 4, 2022, 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 in English on January 9, 2022.
On January 4, 2022, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On January 6, 2022, the Complainant submitted its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 11, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 31, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 1, 2022.
The Center appointed Jonathan Agmon as the sole panelist in this matter on February 9, 2022. 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, SODEXO (formerly called SODEXHO ALLIANCE), is a French company founded in 1966. It is one of the largest companies in the world specialized in foodservices and facilities management. In 2008, SODEXHO simplified the spelling of its mark and name to SODEXO and changed its logo from to
The Complainant owns numerous domain names corresponding to and/or containing SODEXO or SODEXHO:
The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations of the term “sodexo” / “sodexho” in many jurisdictions including China, including but not limited to the following:
- (International Trademark Registration No. 964615) registered on January 8, 2008;
- SODEXO (International Trademark Registration No. 1240316) registered on October 23, 2014;
- SODEXO (European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 008346462) registered on February 1, 2010;
- (European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 006104657) registered on June 27, 2008;
- (International Trademark Registration No. 1195702) registered on October 10, 2013;
- (European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 011138501) registered on January 22, 2013;
- (International Trademark Registration No. 689106) registered on January 28, 1998; and
- (International Trademark Registration No. 694302) registered on June 22, 1998.
The disputed domain names ,
The Complainant’s contentions include the following:
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered SODEXO mark as the disputed domain names consist of misspellings of the SODEXO mark and additions of descriptive terms “benefits” and “center”.
The Complainant also argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names as it has not licensed or permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or register the disputed domain names.
The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s SODEXO mark attracting and redirecting Internet users to third party websites for the purpose of achieving commercial gain.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the ProceedingParagraph 11 of the Rules provides that: “(a) 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.”
The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain names is Chinese.
The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English.
The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Panel cites the following with approval:
“Thus, the general rule is that the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding. In the absence of this agreement, the language of the Registration Agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding. However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Panel’s discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs. It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case.” (See Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl,WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004).
The Panel finds that in the present case, the following should be taken into consideration upon deciding on the language of the proceeding:
(i) the disputed domain names are in Latin script, rather than Chinese characters;
(ii) the disputed domain names websites point to parking pages depicting links in the English, not Chinese language;
(iii) the Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to conduct the proceeding in the Chinese language; and
(iv) the Respondent did not object to the Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceeding.
Upon considering the above, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.
6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarParagraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. The disputed domain names
It is well established that “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element” (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8). In this case, the addition of the terms “benefits” and “center” do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s SODEXO mark.
Further, it is well established that the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, as a standard registration requirement, is disregarded under the first element of confusing similarity test (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1).
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsOnce the complainant establishes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1).
In the present case, the Complainant has demonstrated prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and the Respondent has failed to assert any such rights or legitimate interests.
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations long before the disputed domain names were registered and that it is not affiliated with nor has it licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,WIPO Case No. D2010-0138).
There is also no evidence on record showing that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3).
Further, the Respondent did not submit a Response in the present case and did not provide any explanation or evidence to show rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe complainant must show that the respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides circumstances that may evidence bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
The Complainant has submitted evidence that the disputed domain names resolve to parked pages containing PPC links to third party websites at the disputed domain names and would likely mislead unsuspecting Internet users seeking the Complainant. It is up to the Respondent to control the content appearing on the websites under the disputed domain names. PPC links which capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s mark represent a clear indication of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant has submitted evidence which shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names long after the Complainant registered its trademark. According to the evidence filed by the Complainant, the Complainant has owned registration for the SODEXO mark since the year 2008 and the SODEXHO mark since the year 1998. In view of the evidence filed by the Complainant, and the widespread use of the SODEXO mark, it is suggestive of the Respondent’s bad faith in these particular circumstances that the trademark, owned by the Complainant, was registered long before the registration of the disputed domain names. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Respondent did not know of the Complainant’s mark prior to registration of the disputed domain names (see Sanofi-Aventis v. Abigail Wallace,WIPO Case No. D2009-0735).
In addition, the Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding which is a further indication of the Respondent’s bad faith, which has been considered by the Panel. The Panel has also taken into consideration that fact that the Respondent appears to be engaging in a pattern of cybersquatting, as demonstrated by his history as a named respondent in other UDRP decisions.
Based on the totality of evidence presented to the Panel, including the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s mark, the fact that the disputed domain names are being used for PPC links to third party websites, the fact that no Response was submitted by the Respondent to the Complaint and the Respondent’s pattern of cybersquatting, the Panel draws the inference that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied.
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 names,
Jonathan Agmon
Sole Panelist
Date: February 22, 2022