ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Carrefour SA v. Ding Xin Liu 鼎鑫 刘 Case No. D2024-3238 1. The Parties The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France. The Respondent is Ding Xin Liu 鼎鑫 刘, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 7, 2024. On August 7, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 7, 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/Domain Protection Services, Inc.) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 9, 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 August 9, 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 August 13, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 2, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any Response. The Center informed the Parties that it would proceed with panel appointment on September 6, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on September 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 visitors in its stores. The Complainant has been active in China since 1995, and by 2022 had more than 200 stores operating there. The Complainant is the proprietor of numerous trademarks worldwide for CARREFOUR including International trademark number 351147 registered on October 2, 1968, France trademark number 1487274 registered on February 24, 1989 and European Union trademark number 005178371 registered on August 30, 2007. The Complainant also owns many domain names comprising its trademarks, including registered in 1995. The Domain Name was registered on July 26, 2024. It does not currently resolve to an active website since attempting to access the site generates a 403 Forbidden error. However, according to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, at the time of preparation of the Complaint the Domain Name redirected to a third party website apparently offering for sale a number of apparel products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CARREFOUR trademark, 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. The Center received informal email communications from an email address that was found on the redirected website referred to above. 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; (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
page 3 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. 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 “.com”, the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark with the addition of a hyphen and the word “outlet”. The Panel finds that this addition does 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 used the Domain Name not for a bona fide offering of goods or services but to redirect to a website apparently offering for sale a range of apparel goods. 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 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 trademark in mind when it registered the Domain Name. The Complainant has adduced evidence that the company name and email address given on the Contact Us page of the Respondent’s website have been associated with numerous scam shopping websites where products are offered for sale at discounted prices but customers either receive low quality or no products. The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In this case, the Panel considers that on any view the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CARREFOUR
page 4 mark. In addition, the evidence adduced by the Complainant as to the involvement of those apparently responsible for the Respondent’s website in fraudulent activity, strongly implies that the Respondent is using the Domain Name for illegal activity and Panels have had no hesitation in finding that such activity constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the evidence, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy and 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: September 23, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy