The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins S.A.S., France.
The Respondents are War lA, France; and carrefourlove2 carrefourlove2, Malaysia. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint involving the disputed domain name On November 4, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 6, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 26, 2020. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on December 1, 2020. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on December 4, 2020. 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 one of the world’s leading retailers and does business in more than 30 countries. It owns many registered trademarks around the world, including CARREFOUR, International Trademark Registration No. 351147, registered on October 2, 1968. The disputed domain names The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks; that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely, that: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Consolidation of Multiple Respondents There are two named Respondents, and the Complainant requests that they be consolidated into this matter. The Panel finds that consolidation is proper in this case. Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules states that a “[p]anel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules provides, in relevant part, that “the [p]anel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”. Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) summarizes the consensus view of UDRP panels on the consolidation of multiple respondents and provides that where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels consider whether the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and whether the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. The record indicates the disputed domain names are under common control. Among other things, the disputed domain names were registered only one day apart, share similar structures, and were registered with the same Registrar. Additionally, according to the Complainant, both of the disputed domain names have been used in a wide phishing scheme aimed at collecting personal information as well as banking information of the Complainant’s customers. Further, the disputed domain names resolved to a page impersonating the Complainant, fraudulently attempting to lead consumers to believe that a technical error had resulted in an over-payment, and that such consumers were entitled to a refund. The Respondents have not presented any arguments as to why consolidation would be unfair or inequitable. Accordingly, conditions for consolidation of the disputed domain names into one matter are present here. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to that mark. The Complainant undoubtedly has rights in the mark CARREFOUR, as evidenced by its trademark registrations referred to above. The disputed domain names are identical to this mark. Both of them contain the mark in its entirety, accompanied only by the Top-Level Domains (“TLDs”) “.fit” and “.pw”, each of which do not eliminate the confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Panel finds in favor of the Complainant on this first element of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant will succeed under this element of the Policy if it makes a prima facie showing that the Respondents lack rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and if the Respondents fail to rebut that prima facie showing. On this point, the Complainant asserts the following, among other things: - the Respondents have acquired no trademark in the name CARREFOUR which could have granted the Respondents rights in the disputed domain names; - the Respondents have never been authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s marks as part of the disputed domain names; and - the Respondents’ use of the disputed domain names to engage in a phishing enterprise does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds these facts establish a prima facie showing. The Respondents have not provided any evidence to overcome that showing. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied this second element of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s bad faith registration and use. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, a panel may find bad faith when a respondent “[uses] the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location”. It is clear that the Respondents targeted the Complainant and its well-known CARREFOUR mark when they registered the disputed domain names and set up the websites that appeared at the disputed domain names. The Panel finds it more likely true than not that the Respondents have used the disputed domain names for phishing purposes. Registering and using a domain name containing a mark confusingly similar to a well-known brand, to engage in a phishing scheme, is a clear example of bad faith under the Policy. Reckitt & Colman (Overseas) Health Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / zaghdad mohamed amine, zaghdad,WIPO Case No. D2020-1617. The Complainant has successfully 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 names Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: December 18, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy