ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Société cooperative d'approvisionnement de l'ouest (SCA Ouest) v. Abraham Adeyemi Case No. D2024-3821 1. The Parties Complainant is Société cooperative d'approvisionnement de l'ouest (SCA Ouest), France, represented by HOALEN AVOCATS, France. Respondent is Abraham Adeyemi, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 19, 2024. On September 19, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 20, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on September 25, 2024, 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 on September 26, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 30, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 20, 2024. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 22, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on October 25, 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 Complainant is a French company operating as a regional central purchasing office for the supply of E. Leclerc shopping centers in Western France. Complainant’s company name, “SOCIETE COOPERATIVE D'APPROVISIONNEMENT DE L'OUEST”, has been registered since January 9, 1970, and used thereafter also in its short version SCA OUEST. Complainant owns the French trademark registration No. 4901636 SCA OUEST (word) filed and registered on September 29, 2022, for services in international classes 35 and 38. Complainant also owns the domain name registrations registered on May 24, 1999, and registered on March 13, 2017. The Domain Name was registered on July 30, 2024, and leads to an inactive website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) 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 standing (or 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. 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.
page 3 The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the omission of the letter “u” from the “ouest” portion of the mark and the addition of other terms here, “fr” short for France, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that these elements do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.8 and 1.9. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; and Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik, WIPO Case No. D2002-0122). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds the first element of 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 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. As such, 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. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. Respondent did not demonstrate any use of the Domain Name prior to the notice of the dispute or a trademark corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrated, the Domain Name resolves to an inactive page. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 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. Because Complainant’s mark had been used and registered by Complainant at the time of the Domain Name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226). Furthermore, the whole of Complainant’s trademark is included in the Domain Name with the mere omission of the letter “u”, a clear case of typosquatting and the addition of the letters “fr” short for France, the country where Complainant is based. The above are a clear indication that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademarks and chose the Domain Name having those in mind.
page 4 Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the non-use of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use 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, and the (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. In the present case, the Panel notes a) the reputation of Complainant’s trademark in its field of business, b) the fact that Respondent has not submitted a response, c) the composition of the Domain Name, which incorporates Complainant’s trademark entirely, with the omission of the letter “u”, a clear case of typosquatting and d) the addition in the Domain Name of the letters “fr”, short for France, where the Complainant is located. Taking all the above into account, as well as the fact that the Domain Name was registered with a privacy service, the Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that 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 Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: November 5, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy