The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins S.A.S., France.
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC / J Kevin Adams, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 18, 2020. On November 18, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 19, 2020, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 24, 2020, 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 November 27, 2020. 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 December 1, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 21, 2020. The Respondent did not submit a formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 22, 2020. On the same date the Respondent submitted an informal communication, without replying to the Complainant’s contentions. The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on January 7, 2021. 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 the French retailer Carrefour SA. The Complainant is a worldwide leader in retail and a pioneer of the concept of hypermarkets. With a turnaround of 76 billion euros in 2018, the Complainant is listed on the index of the Paris Stock Exchange (CAC 40). The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations, among others: Trademark International Registration Number Registration Date Classes Jurisdiction CARREFOUR 351147 October 2, 1968 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 16, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Benelux, Spain, France, Italy, Monaco CARREFOUR 353849 February 28, 1969 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 21, 42 France, Estonia, Lithuania, Benelux, czech Republic, Spian, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Latvia, Morocco, Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia, San Marino The disputed domain name was registered on October 22, 2020. The website in relation to the disputed domain name hosts a pay-per-click (PPC) advertising page which contains commercial links similar to Complainant’s services. The Complainant owns a vast portfolio of domain names, the oldest of which, The Complainant asserted the following: That it is a worldwide leader in retail that operates more than 12,000 stores in more than 30 countries, with more than 384,000 employees and 1.3 million daily visitors in its stores; that it is listed on the index of the Paris Stock Exchange; and that it also offers travel, banking, insurance and ticketing services. That the trademarks CARREFOUR enjoy a wide-spread continuous reputation, and that they are well-known in France and internationally (and cites Carrefour v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0155401638 / Binya Rteam,WIPO Case No. D2019-2895; and Carrefour v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo,WIPO Case No. D2019-2610 to support its allegation that previous panels have ruled that CARREFOUR is a well-known trademark). That its Facebook page is currently liked by more than 11 million Internet users. That the disputed domain name is similar to the trademarks CARREFOUR, because the latter is reproduced in the former together with the generic term “group”; that the addition of this generic term does not diminish the likelihood of confusion arising from the disputed domain name. That the use of lower-case letter format and the addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” are not significant in determining whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. That the Complainant performed online searches and found no CARREFOUR trademark registrations owned by the Respondent. That the Complainant has found no evidence that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name. That the Respondent reproduces the trademark CARREFOUR in the disputed domain name without any license or authorization from the Complainant. That the Respondent has not, before the original filing of the Complaint, used or made preparations to use the disputed domain name in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services; that on the contrary, the disputed domain name used to resolve to an active page of PPC commercial links. That the Complainant and its trademarks were so widely well-known, that it is inconceivable that the Respondent ignored the Complainant. That the Respondent had the Complainant’s name and trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. That the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name cannot be accidental and must have been influenced by the fame of the Complainant and its trademarks. That a simple online search for “carrefour” on an online search engine yields results that are only related to the Complainant. That it is very likely that the Respondent chose the disputed domain name because of its similarity to the Complainant’s trademarks, in the hope and expectation that Internet users searching for the Complainant’s services and products would instead come across the Respondent’s site. That the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion whit the Complainant’s trademarks. That the Complainant’s trademark registrations significantly predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. That previous panels have established that knowledge of the Complainant’s intellectual property rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name proves bad faith registration. That a CARREFOUR trademark search would have revealed to the Respondent the existence of the Complainant and its trademarks. That the Respondent’s failure to do so is a contributory factor to his bad faith. That the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with an active page of PPC commercial links for commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant must prove that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and In view of the Respondent’s failure to submit a Response, the Panel can decide this proceeding on the basis of the Complainant’s undisputed factual allegations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, and shall draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules (see Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson,WIPO Case No. D2000-0009; Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Seweryn Nowak,WIPO Case No. D2003-0022; Universal City Studios, Inc. v. David Burns and Adam-12 Dot Com,WIPO Case No. D2001-0784; and International Hospitality Management IHM S.p.A. v. Enrico Callegari Ecostudio,WIPO Case No. D2002-0683; Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk,WIPO Case No. D2002-0487). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR, as it incorporates said trademark in its entirety. The Complainant has filed evidence showing that it owns multiple registrations for the trademark CARREFOUR in various jurisdictions. Based on the evidence filed by the Complainant, this Panel agrees with previous panels in the sense that the trademark CARREFOUR is well-known (see Carrefour v. rabie nolife,WIPO Case No. D2019-0673; Carrefour v. Jane Casares, NA,WIPO Case No. D2018-0976; Carrefour v. WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard Protected / Robert Jurek, Katrin Kafut, Purchasing clerk, Starship Tapes & Records,WIPO Case No. D2017-2533; Carrefour v. Tony Mancini, USDIET Whoisguard, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2015-0962; Carrefour v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2015-0769; Carrefour v. Park KyeongSook,WIPO Case No. D2014-1425; Carrefour v. Yujinhua,WIPO Case No. D2014-0257; Carrefour v. Karin Krueger,WIPO Case No. D2013-2002; Carrefour S.A. v. Patrick Demestre,WIPO Case No. D2011-2248; Carrefour v. groupe carrefour,WIPO Case No. D2008-1996; Carrefour SA v. Eric Langlois,WIPO Case No. D2007-0067). Therefore, the disputed domain name is likely to be associated by the public to the Complainant and its activities (see Carrefour v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0155401638 / Binya Rteam Case No. D2019-2895; Carrefour v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo Case No. D2019-2610). As the trademark CARREFOUR is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the inclusion of the generic term “group” as a suffix does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”); see also F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. n/a, Whois Privacy Protection Service,WIPO Case No. D2013-0599; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. James Johnson,WIPO Case No. D2012-0080; Hermes International v. Fuzhoudongchen Tech Inc,WIPO Case No. D2011-0542). The addition of the ccTLD “.co” to the disputed domain name is a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (DNS), and therefore has no legal significance (see section 1.11. of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also CARACOLITO S SAS v. Nelson Brown, OXM.CO,WIPO Case No. D2020-0268; Facebook, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Xiamen Tianmu zhuangshi sheji youxian gongsi,WIPO Case No. D2020-0885; AB Electrolux v. Abraham Joffe,WIPO Case No. DCO2017-0037). Thus, the first element of the Policy has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets forth the following examples as circumstances where a respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name: (i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the use by the respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it did no acquire trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Complainant has affirmed that it has not granted any license or authorization to the Respondent to reproduce the trademark CARREFOUR in the disputed domain name, that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not used or made preparations to use the disputed domain name in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services because he has used said disputed domain name to resolve to an active page with PPC commercial links. The Respondent has not contested these allegations. Therefore, the Complainant made a prima facie case asserting that the Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s election of the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark CARREFOUR combined with the generic term “group” suggests that the Respondent has targeted the Complainant, its trademark and its business. Therefore, the Respondent’s conduct cannot be considered to conform a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name (see Dream Marriage Group, Inc. v. Romantic Lines LP, Vadim Parhomchuk,WIPO Case No. D2020-1344; Valentino S.p.A. v. Qiu Yufeng, Li Lianye,WIPO Case No. D2016-1747; see also Abbott Laboratories v. Hola Domains / Hola Dominios Limitada,WIPO Case No. D2017-2463; Mecenat Aktiebolag v. C/O Alpnames Limited / Edouard,WIPO Case No. D2018-1366). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The Complainant ascertained its rights over the CARREFOUR trademark internationally. The Complainant’s trademark registrations significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain name. Considering that CARREFOUR is a well-known trademark, it can be inferred that the Respondent knew the Complainant and its business when he registered the disputed domain name, which shows opportunistic bad faith (see section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 ; see also L’Oréal v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0149511181 / Jerry Peter,WIPO Case No. D2018-1937; Gilead Sciences Ireland UC / Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Domain Maybe For Sale c/o Dynadot,WIPO Case No. D2019-0980; Carrefour v. Jane Casares, NA,WIPO Case No. D2018-0976). The evidence submitted by the Complainant shows that the Respondent has used the disputed domain to resolve to a web site with PPC links, many of which are directly related to the Complainant’s services. Therefore, the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (see 1IQ PTY LTD v. 1337 Services LLC,WIPO Case No. D2017-2156; Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp Inc. v. Wisdom King, Wizindo,WIPO Case No. D2019-2517). Therefore, the third element of the Policy has been met. 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 Kiyoshi Tsuru
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Sole Panelist
Date: January 21, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy