ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION SODEXO v. guo min Case No. D2025-3490 1. The Parties The Complainant is SODEXO, France, represented by Areopage, France. The Respondent is guo min, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Gname 401 Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 28, 2025. On August 28, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 29, 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 (Redacted for privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 2, 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 in English on September 5, 2025. On September 2, 2025, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On September 5, 2025, the Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the 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 the Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 8, 2025. In accordance with
page 2 the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 28, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 30, 2025. The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on October 6, 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 was founded in France in 1966. It is one of the largest companies specializing in food services and facilities management services in the world and has been continuously and extensively using the marks SODEXO and SODEXHO in its business. The Complainant’s trademark SODEXO (No. 008346462) was registered in the European Union on February 1, 2010. The Complainant also owns the following marks registered through the international trademark registration system, i.e., - SODEXO & device (No. 964615) registered on January 8, 2008, designating many countries, including China; - SODEXO, device & 精彩每一天 (No. 1091622) registered on May 11, 2011, designating China. All above trademark registrations have been renewed and are effective. The Complainant owns numerous domain names containing SODEXO or SODEXHO marks. The Respondent is an individual residing in China, and registered the disputed domain name on July 22, 2025. The disputed domain name does not resolve to any website. 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 incorporates the SODEXO mark in its entirety with the addition of the element “cfdt”, which represents “Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail”, and that this addition does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The disputed domain name is, therefore, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent does not have any affiliation, association, sponsorship or connection with the Complainant and has not been authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted by the Complainant or by any subsidiary or affiliated company to register the disputed domain name and to use it. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Even if the disputed domain name has not currently appeared to point to a website with active content, a passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English because the Complainant is not able to communicate in Chinese and the disputed domain name is registered in Latin scripts. The Complainant contends it would have to incur substantial expenses, if required to translate all the documents into Chinese. The Complainant also concerns that the proceeding will be unduly delayed. The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, 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 (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above and also noting that the disputed domain name is in Latin characters and contains “cfdt” standing for the name of French Democratic Confederation of Labor, the Panel presumes that the Respondent comprehends English or French. Given that the Respondent does not object to the Complainant’s request for adopting English as the language of proceeding and the Complainant would have to assume the substantive burden of translation if Chinese be adopted as the language of proceeding, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2 Substantive Issues 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 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 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 “cfdt”, which is the common acronym for “Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail” (French Democratic Confederation of Labor) prefixed to “sodexo”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing
page 4 similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s SODEXO mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. 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 the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing. Given that the disputed domain name has not been activated to direct to any website, the Panel cannot find any evidence that can demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. 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. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. 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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name that combines “cfdt” (the common acronym for “Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail”) with the distinctive and reputable SODEXO mark owned by the Complainant, intentionally refers to SODEXO’s connection with CFDT or SODEXO’s employees’ membership of the CFDT union. The Complainant’s concern that the disputed domain name has the potential to be put to a fraudulent use, especially to perpetrate email scams to steal the personal data of SODEXO’S employees who are members of the CFDT Union and/or to request payment of false invoices on fake Sodexo/CFDT bank accounts by impersonating Complainant’s/CFDT’s employees, should be considered seriously. The Panel finds that the circumstances of this case show that the Respondent knowingly registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s SODEXO mark and is implausible of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put. The passive holding of the disputed domain name, therefore, does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.
page 5 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. /Dr. Hong Xue/ Dr. Hong Xue Sole Panelist Date: October 20, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy