ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Carrefour SA v. privacy services Case No. D2024-1852 1. The Parties The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France. The Respondent is privacy services, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
(the “Domain Name”) is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 2, 2024. On May 2, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 2, 2024, 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 the Complainant on May 3, 2024, 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 May 3, 2024. 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 May 6, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 26, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 29, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on June 12, 2024. 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 worldwide leading retailer and a pioneer of the concept of hypermarkets back in 1968. With a revenue of EUR 83 billion in 2022, the Complainant is listed on the index of the Paris Stock Exchange (CAC 40). The Complainant operates more than 12,000 stores in more than 30 countries worldwide. It has more than 384,000 employees worldwide and 1.3 million daily unique visitors in its stores. The Complainant is the proprietor of numerous trademarks worldwide comprising CARREFOUR including International trademark number 351147 CARREFOUR registered on October 2, 1968, European Union trademark number 005178371 CARREFOUR registered on August 30, 2007 and International trademark number 719166 CARREFOUR PASS registered on August 18, 1999. The Complainant also owns many domain names comprising its trademarks, including registered in 1995 and registered in 2019. The Domain Name was registered on April 23, 2024. It does not resolve to an active website. According to the WhoIs data provided by the Registrar, the address of the registrant is “privacy services, Redactec for privacy, privacy services, Privacy 00000, US 0000000000”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR PASS trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The threshold test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.
page 3 Based on the available evidence, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark with the addition of the words “pass” and “web”, separated by a hyphen; and the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR PASS trademark with the addition of a hyphen and the word “web”. The Panel finds that these additions do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element required under the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. Accordingly, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. The Respondent has made no use of the Domain Name and has therefore not used it for a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no question of the Respondent being known by the Domain Name. Having reviewed the available evidence, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Accordingly, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In the light in particular of the notoriety of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR name and trademark, the Panel considers it inconceivable that the Respondent did not have the Complainant and its rights in the Mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available evidence, the Panel finds the non-use of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. Although panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: “(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”. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.
page 4 In this case, the Complainant’s mark is distinctive; the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint; the Respondent’s contact details are self-evidently false; and the Panel cannot conceive of any good faith use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name. Based on the available evidence, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. /Ian Lowe/ Ian Lowe Sole Panelist Date: June 28, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy