ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sodexo v. orliac christophe Case No. D2025-2334 1. The Parties The Complainant is Sodexo, France, represented by Areopage, France. The Respondent is orliac christophe, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 13, 2025. On June 16, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 17, 2025, 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 (Unknown / REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 17, 2025, 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 June 18, 2025. 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 June 20, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 10, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 12, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on July 17, 2025. 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 Sodexo, one of the largest companies in the world specialized in food services and facilities management. It owns several trademark registrations for SODEXO: SODEXO (device), French trademark registration No. 3513766 dated July 16, 2007; SODEXO, French trademark registration No. 4697571 dated November 3, 2020; SODEXO (device), International Trademark Registration No. 964615 dated January 8, 2008; SODEXO, International Trademark Registration No. 1240316 dated October 23, 2014; SODEXO (device), European Union trademark registration No. 006104657 dated June 27, 2008; and SODEXO, European Union trademark registration No. 008346462 dated February 1, 2010; The disputed domain name is . It was registered on June 12, 2025, and redirects to the Complainant’s official web site. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its earlier trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the rules set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 3 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. 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. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. And the Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other letters and terms (here a final “s” after SODEXO and the term “groupes”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. 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. (i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. 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 the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way and that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed 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 disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.
page 4 The Panel further observes that the Respondent does not make any bona fide use nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, as the same redirects towards the Complainant’s official web site. 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. Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include the complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the complaint having been filed, and the respondent’s concealment of its identity. UDRP panels may draw inferences about whether a domain name was used in bad faith given the circumstances surrounding the registration. The Complainant has substantiated the fact that its trademark SODEXO, which has been registered and used in France for years, now benefits from a high level of public awareness. Earlier UDRP decisions have acknowledged the Complainant’s trademark reputation. The identity of the Respondent was disclosed by the Registrar, and it was confirmed that the Respondent was based in France. The fact that the Respondent used a French address implies that he is a French resident or at least has connections with France, where the Complainant’s mark is very well known. Besides, the disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s official web site. In light of the above, this Panel finds hard to believe that the Respondent did not have the Complainant’s trademark in mind when he registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant has further substantiated that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of conduct, as the very same Respondent did register a number of domain names formed with the Complainant’s trademark (see Sodexo v. Christophe Orliac, WIPO Case No. D2025-0391) and used them for phishing purposes. The Complainant successfully initiated the UDRP and SYRELI procedures where the bad faith of the Respondent was acknowledged. In this particular case, no evidence of fraudulent actions such as phishing has been reported, but the Panel is able to infer from the Respondent’s pattern of abusive registrations targeting the Complainant and the circumstances of the matter, namely that the disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s web site, that the Respondent intentions are not motivated by good faith. 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. /William Lobelson/ William Lobelson Sole Panelist Date: July 21, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy