WIPO Domain Name Decision D2021-4397 for ssocarrefour.com

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Carrefour SA v. lin yanxiao Case No. D2021-4397 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France.

The Respondent is lin yanxiao, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 29, 2021. On December 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 29, 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 December 29, 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 December 30, 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 January 4, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 24, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 25, 2022.

The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on February 3, 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 Background

The Complainant is a retailer (also offering banking, insurance, and ticketing services) based in France. It developed the hypermarket concept in 1968 and is publicly listed on the Paris Stock Exchange. The Complainant operates more than 12,000 stores in more than 30 countries. With more than 321,000 employees worldwide and 1.3 million daily unique visitors to its stores and a turnover of EUR 78 billion in 2020, the Complainant is a significant international retailer. The Complainant owns numerous trade mark registrations worldwide for its CARREFOUR mark, including International trade mark No. 351147 for CARREFOUR registered on October 2, 1968, which designated multiple jurisdictions. The Complainant owns the domain name from which it operates its main corporate website and it has a very considerable social media presence.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 20, 2021 and resolves to a pay-per-click landing page.

5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that it owns registered rights in its CARREFOUR trade mark as noted above. It says that the CARREFOUR mark is wholly incorporated into the disputed domain name and is therefore confusingly similar to it. It says that the addition of the generic term “sso” which means “Single Sign-On” and that designates an authentication scheme allowing a user to log into different software with a single log-on does not distinguish the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant submits it has found no evidence whatsoever that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name or that it owns any registered trade mark rights for CARREFOUR or SSO CARREFOUR. It also says that there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name as an individual, business, or other organization. Neither, submits the Complainant, has it authorised the use by the Respondent of the CARREFOUR mark or any similar term, whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. It also says that 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 and that use to resolve to a simple parking page displaying commercial, pay-per-click links does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services.

As the adoption and extensive use by the Complainant of the CARREFOUR trade mark predates the registration of the disputed domain name and considering the substantial degree of renown attaching to the CARREFOUR mark and a simple search on an online search engine yields top results only related to the Complainant, the Complainant submits that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s mark and business when it registered the disputed domain name.

The Complainant notes also that it uses the subdomain for its own single sign-on system. It says that the disputed domain name redirects towards a parking page that displays pay-per-click commercial links and in doing so falls within the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. It also notes that a reverse-WhoIs performed on the email address of the Respondent indicates that the same respondent seems to be linked to several other domain names imitating famous brands which is indicative of a pattern of bad faith use of well reputed domain names.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trade mark rights for its CARREFOUR mark, including International trade mark No. 351147 for CARREFOUR registered on October 2, 1968. The CARREFOUR mark is wholly incorporated into the disputed domain name and is therefore confusingly similar to it. The addition of the abbreviation “sso”, which the Complainant notes means “Single Sign-On”, does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR mark. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint succeeds under this element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has submitted that it has found no evidence whatsoever that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name or that it owns any registered trade mark rights for CARREFOUR or SSO CARREFOUR. It has also contended that there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name as an individual, business, or other organisation. The Complainant has also submitted that it has not authorised the use by the Respondent of the CARREFOUR mark, or of any similar term, whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. In addition, the Complainant has submitted that 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 and that use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a simple parking page displaying commercial, pay-per-click links does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As the Complainant’s case has not been rebutted by the Respondent the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully made out its case and that the Complaint also succeeds under this element of the Policy

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name was registered on September 20, 2021, many years after the registration of the Complainant’s international registration for CARREFOUR in 1968. It is notable that previous UDRP panels have held that the Complainant enjoys a notable reputation attaching to its CARREFOUR mark, including in a case in which the Respondent was based in China. See for example Carrefour v. Yujinhua,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0257

Considering the very substantial size of the Complainant’s international business under the CARREFOUR mark and the degree of renown attaching to it, the considerable online presence of the Complainant’s business and that its existence would have been revealed by a simple online or trade mark search and also the high degree of distinctiveness of the French term “carrefour” when used in relation to retail services, the Panel finds that it is most likely that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s business and mark when it registered the disputed domain name.

Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy there is evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith where a Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website.

The disputed domain name redirects Internet users towards a parking page that displays pay-per-click commercial links. The Complainant uses the subdomain for its own single sign-on system and it appears that the Respondent has sought to use an almost identical formula in the disputed domain name in order to confuse Internet users into thinking that it will lead them to a site connected with the Complainant’s CARREFOUR business. It is more than likely that the Respondent benefits commercially from this arrangement and it appears from the reverse-WhoIs search performed on the email address of the Respondent that the Respondent may have registered other domain names containing well reputed trade marks, presumably for similar reasons. In the circumstances the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are fulfilled and that this is evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Accordingly, the Complaint also succeeds under this element 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

Alistair Payne
Sole Panelist
Date: February 17, 2022

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy