The Complainant is Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc – ACD Lec, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France.
The Respondent is caramelle morgane, France.
2. The Domain Name, Registry and RegistrarThe disputed domain name is
The Registry of the disputed domain name is the European Registry for Internet Domains (“EURid” or the “Registry”). The Registrar of the disputed domain name is Namecheap, Inc.
3. Procedural HistoryThe Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 21, 2021. On July 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 22, 2021, the Registry 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 which were unknown at this stage. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 29, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registry and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 29, 2021.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”) and the World Intellectual Property Organization Supplemental Rules for .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(2), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 11, 2021. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(3), the due date for Response was September 23. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 28, 2021.
The Center appointed Michel Vivant as the sole panelist in this matter on October 1, 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 ADR Rules, Paragraph B(5).
4. Factual BackgroundThe Complainant is a chain of supermarkets and hypermarket stores in France. It has about 721 stores in France, located all over the country.
The Complainant owns several LECLERC trademarks and notably the French Trademark LECLERC No. 1307790 filed on May 2, 1985, and the European Union Trademark LECLERC No. 002700656 filed on May 17, 2002.
The registration of the disputed domain name
The Complainant claims that “Leclerc” “is one of the most renowned chain of supermarkets and hypermarkets stores in France.” The Complainant observes that “the denomination ‘Leclerc’ ‘has no meaning in French or English and is thus highly distinctive’ and that the disputed domain name
The Complainant adds that the Respondent has no link of any nature with the Complainant. The Respondent is not commonly known under the name “Leclerc”. The content of the website associated to the domain name does not indicate any link with the denomination “Leclerc”. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the name “Leclerc”. And lastly there is not bona fide offering goods or/and services. So, for the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
About the registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant underlines that the trademarks LECLERC are well-known trademarks, recognized as such by plenty of decisions of the UDRP panels, so that the reproduction of the name “Leclerc” cannot be a coincidence but shows that the Respondent has undoubtedly registered the disputed domain name because he was well-aware of the existence of the involved trademarks. About the use in bad faith, the Complainant observes that the disputed domain name leads to an error page, which constitutes a use which “is clearly deprived of any real and substantial offer of goods or services and cannot be considered as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use”. The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name disturbs its business by giving a false and bad image of its entity. It stresses also that the Respondent registered at least two other domain names reproducing the Complainant’s trademarks LECLERC. Lastly, considering the fraudulent intent existing according to it behind the reservation of the domain names, the Complainant is afraid of a risk of phishing from the Respondent. So, it is clear for the Complainant that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or European Union lawAccording to the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i), the Complainant must prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and/or European Union law.
So, before all, the Panel observes that the Complainant has provided evidence that it has rights on the LECLERC trademarks, French and European.
This being said, the Panel notices that the disputed domain name reproduces these trademarks in their entirety. The fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name. The addition of the word “groupe” which refers to a “set” of companies does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
Lastly, it must be reminded that according to prior ADR panels decisions the “.eu” suffix should be disregarded for assessing identity or confusing similarity.
In consequence, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LECLERC trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsAccording to the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(ii), the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Given the similarities between the ADR Rules and the UDRP, and according to prior ADR panel decisions, in so far the proof relates to a lack of rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant only needs to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, and 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.
In the present case, it is clear that the Complainant, the name of which is well-known in the distribution sector, has not authorized the Respondent, which does not appear anywhere under the name “Leclerc”, to use this name “Leclerc.” There is no link between the Complainant and the Respondent.
There is no bona fide offer of goods and/or services, the disputed domain name leading only to an error page.
What is more, if the Respondent wanted to defend the opposite viewpoint, it would have been easy for it to reply to the Complainant’s contentions, which remain unrebutted.
In addition, the Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name, reproducing the LECLERC trademark with the word “groupe”, which refers to a “set” of companies, suggests an idea of affiliation to the Leclerc group.
All that sufficiently shows for the Panel that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
C. Registered or Used in Bad FaithUnder the ADR Rules a complainant must demonstrate why the disputed domain name has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interests or the disputed domain name should be considered as having been registered or being used in bad faith. Lack of rights or legitimate interests and registration or use in bad faith are alternative requirements. So, as far as the Panel has found that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name no further discussion on bad faith registration or use is necessary.
Nevertheless, the Panel wish to observe that, at it is argued by the Complainant, the trademarks LECLERC are well-known trademarks, recognized as such by plenty of decisions of the UDRP panels (for instance, recently, Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / auchanlove auchanlove,WIPO Case No. D2021-0031 or Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc v. Redacted for Privacy, See PrivacyGuardian.org / pastal dolly malhotra,WIPO Case No. D2021-0037). So, the Respondent could not have ignored the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time the disputed domain name was registered nor accordingly have chosen it fortuitously. In other words, by the way according to a consistent jurisprudence of UDRP panels, noting the composition of the disputed domain name, the registration may certainly be considered as having been made in bad faith.
Thus, the third requirement under the ADR Rules is also met.
7. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph B(11) of the ADR Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name
Michel Vivant
Sole Panelist
Date: October 12, 2021
1 (i) The decision shall be implemented by the Registry within thirty (30) days after the notification of the decision to the Parties, unless the Respondent initiates court proceedings in a Mutual Jurisdiction, as defined in Paragraph A(1) of the ADR Rules.
(ii) The Complainant, based in France, satisfies the general eligibility criteria for registration set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No. 733/2002 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/517.