ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Carrefour SA v. yan lu lu Case No. D2023-4802 1. The Parties Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France. Respondent is yan lu lu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 20, 2023. On November 20, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 21, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 21, 2023 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on November 21, 2023. On November 21, 2023, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the Domain Name is Chinese. On November 21, 2023, Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. Respondent did not submit any comment on Complainant's submission. 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 Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 29, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 19, 2023. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on December 26, 2023. page 2 The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on December 28, 2023. 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 Complainant, headquartered in France, and listed on the Paris Stock Exchange (CAC 40) index, operates retail stores worldwide, as well as travel, banking, insurance, or ticketing services. Complainant operates more than 12,000 stores in over 30 countries, with more than 321,000 employees globally. In 2019, its revenues were approximately EUR 80.7 billion. Complainant has a global presence, including in France and Brazil. Complainant owns numerous registered trademarks worldwide for CARREFOUR, such as: - International trademark registration No. 351147 for CARREFOUR, registered on October 2, 1968; and - International trademark registration No. 353849 for CARREFOUR, registered on February 28, 1969. Complainant also owns several domain names with the CARREFOUR mark and owns and operates its corporate website at the domain name , which was registered in 1995. The Domain Name was registered on October 16, 2023, and at the time of the filing of the Complaint, it reverted to an inactive page. At the time of the Decision, the Domain Name resolves to an error page. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations for CARREFOUR and that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name with the intention to confuse Internet users looking for bona fide and well-known CARREFOUR products and services. Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent and contends that Respondent is using the Domain Name as a tool to exploit Complainant's reputation for its own commercial gain, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name. Further, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant's rights. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding The Rules, in paragraph 11(a), provide that unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the 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. Complainant submitted its original Complaint in English. In its Complaint, and amended Complaint, Complainant confirmed its request that the language of the proceeding should be English. According to the information received from the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name is Chinese. Complainant asserts that they are unable to effectively communicate in Chinese, as it is a French entity that holding the proceeding in Chinese would cause undue delay, considerable expense, unfair disadvantage, and burden Complainant as well as the dispensation of the current matter. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the Registration Agreement for the Domain Name, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both Parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the Parties' ability to understand and use the proposed language, time, and costs. The Panel accepts Complainant's submissions regarding the language of the proceeding. The Panel notes that the Center notified the Parties in Chinese and English of the language of the proceeding as well as notified Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint. Respondent chose not to comment on the language of the proceeding, nor did Respondent choose to file a Response. The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure that the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost-effective manner. Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to translate the Complaint into Chinese and to conduct the proceeding in Chinese. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding. 6.2. Substantive Issues Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") states that failure to respond to the complainant's contentions would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; and a respondent's default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant's claims are true. Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. page 4 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the CARREFOUR trademarks, as noted above under section 4. Complainant has therefore proven that it has the requisite rights in the CARREFOUR trademarks. With Complainant's rights in the CARREFOUR trademarks established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the Top-Level Domain ("TLD") in which it is registered (in this case is, ".com"), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842. Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CARREFOUR trademarks. The CARREFOUR trademarks are recognizable in the Domain Name. In particular, the Domain Name's inclusion of Complainant's trademarks CARREFOUR in its entirety, with the addition of the term "grupo" before the mark CARREFOUR and the addition of the term "brasil" after CARREFOUR does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and Complainant's CARREFOUR trademarks. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP. From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and its CARREFOUR trademarks, and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In addition, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark and is not related to Complainant. Respondent is also not known to be associated with the CARREFOUR trademarks and there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, at the time of filing of the Complaint, the Domain Name reverted to an inactive website. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and cannot under the circumstances confer on Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See, e.g., Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Charles Duke / Oneandone Private Registration, WIPO Case No. D2013-0875. Moreover, the nature of the Domain Name is inherently misleading, and carries a risk of implied affiliation (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1). Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie claim that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. page 5 C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent's actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely: "(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the 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 trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location." The Panel finds that Complainant has provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the CARREFOUR trademarks long predate the registration of the Domain Name. Complainant is also well established and known. Indeed, the record shows that Complainant's CARREFOUR trademarks and related products and services are widely known and recognized. The evidence provided by Complainant with respect to the extent of use and global fame of its CARREFOUR mark combined with the absence of any evidence provided by Respondent to the contrary, suggests to the Panel that, at the time the Domain Name was registered, Respondent was likely aware of the CARREFOUR trademarks and should have known that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks. Moreover, the additional terms "grupo" ("group" in Spanish and Portuguese) and "brasil" respectively before and after CARREFOUR in the Domain Name also imply association with Complainant's business activities in Brazil, where Complainant has a presence. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2; and see also TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1973. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's awareness of Complainant's trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; and BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007. The fact that the Domain Name does not resolve to a website and is in effect being passively held does not prevent a finding of bad faith. When a domain name is being passively held, the question of bad faith use does not squarely fall under one of the non-exhaustive factors set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. However, section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, instructs that UDRP panels should examine the totality of the circumstances in each case and that the following factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine: "(i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put." page 6 Here Complainant has submitted evidence that its fanciful CARREFOUR mark has been used for many years globally before Respondent's registration of the Domain Name. Respondent has not offered any evidence to rebut this conclusion, nor has he provided any evidence of his intended good faith use of the Domain Name. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been used in bad faith by Respondent. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith and Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 Domain Name be transferred to Complainant. /Kimberley Chen Nobles/ Kimberley Chen Nobles Sole Panelist Date: January 11, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy