WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Carrefour v. Milen Radumilo / United Privacy Corp

Case No. D2015-1851

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Carrefour of Boulogne-Billancourt, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.

The Respondent is Milen Radumilo of Bucharest, Romania / United Privacy Corp of Belize City, Belize.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <carrefour-sa.com> is registered with NAMEPAL.COM #8002 (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 16, 2015. On October 16, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 28, 2015, 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 October 29, 2015 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 3, 2015.

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 November 10, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 30, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 1, 2015.

The Center appointed Charters Macdonald-Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on December 10, 2015. 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 states that it is a multinational retailer headquartered in Boulogne-Billancourt, France. Over the past 50 years, it has grown to become a world-leading retailer and is now the second-largest retailer in the world. The Complainant operates four different types of stores: hypermarkets, supermarkets, convenience stores and cash and carry shops for professionals. It has more than 10,800 stores in 34 countries generating revenues of EUR 100.5 billion in 2014. It has more than 10 million customers per day, around the world, and more than 53% of its sales take place outside France.

The Complainant noticed that the disputed domain name <carrefour-sa.com> had been registered. Their further search revealed that the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent and resolved to a parking page that consisted of sponsored links, some of which related to the Complainant. The parking page also indicated that the disputed domain name was for sale.

On July 27, 2015, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter, referring to its trademark rights, by registered mail and e-mail to the Respondent, the privacy shield then identified as YourJungle Privacy Protection Service. The letter asked the Respondent to cease use of the disputed domain name and transfer it to the Complainant. The letter was returned undelivered and the Complainant noticed that the privacy shield had changed to United Privacy Corp, located in Belize. Further reminders were sent by email but no reply was provided by the Respondent.

The Complainant states that its CARREFOUR trademark enjoys a worldwide reputation. The Complainant also owns numerous trademark registrations for the mark CARREFOUR around the world. In particular, the Complainant owns the International Trademark Registration CARREFOUR Number 1010661 dated April 16, 2009 covering services in class 35.

The Complainant is the owner of the domain name <carrefour.com> which incorporates the trademark CARREFOUR.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 1, 2015.

In the absence of a Response, the Panel accepts the evidence adduced by the Complainant to be true. It proceeds to determine the Complaint on the basis of this evidence.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it because each of the three elements required in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been established.

The Complainant and its CARREFOUR trademark enjoy a worldwide reputation. The Complainant has registered trademarks in various countries for the mark CARREFOUR. The Complainant has registered and uses the domain name <carrefour.com> which incorporates the CARREFOUR trademark. Previous UDRP panels have considered the CARREFOUR trademark to be “well-known” and “famous”. See Carrefour v Tony Mancini, 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 SA 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.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark in its entirety.

In addition to CARREFOUR, the disputed domain name also includes the generic and descriptive letters “sa” intersected with a hyphen. Neither the hyphen nor the letters “sa” distinguishes the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark but, on the contrary, heightens the likelihood of confusion because “sa” refers to the legal form of the Complainant. Finally, the inclusion of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) such as “.com” is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name as it is well established that such a gTLD is irrelevant in evaluating similarity.

There is a likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name could mislead Internet users to think that it is, in some way, associated with the Complainant.

The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant or its business. It is not authorised or licensed to use the CARREFOUR trademark, nor seek registration of a domain name incorporating that mark. Previous UDRP panels have found that the absence of a licence or permission from the Complainant to use widely-known trademarks, indicates that no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed.

The disputed domain name is so similar to the CARREFOUR trademark that the Respondent cannot reasonably have intended to develop a legitimate activity through the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name is used to direct Internet users to a parking page displaying pay-per-click content. As such, it cannot be assumed that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is also advertised for sale and so it seems more likely that the Respondent has no legitimate interests or rights in the disputed domain name and intended to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for valuable consideration. Also, the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with a privacy shield service indicates that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter further indicates that it can be assumed that there is no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is well-known and its trademark registrations extend around the world. Consequently, it is not plausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when the disputed domain name was registered. The Complainant assumes that the Respondent did not take steps to check the Complainant’s rights or conduct any searches to identify the Complainant’s trademarks and this is a contributory factor to its bad faith. Previous UDRP panels have found that unauthorised use (that is, use without licence or permission from the Complainant), can indicate an absence of actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a privacy shield service, preventing the Complainant from contacting him. Previous UDRP panels have confirmed that deliberate concealment of identity and contact information can indicate registration in bad faith.

The Respondent did not provide any arguments or other reply to the Complaint or to any of the Complainant’s prior correspondence. This further demonstrates the Respondent’s lack of legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and suggests bad faith at the time of registration. Previous UDRP panels have drawn an inference of bad faith from such behavior. The Complainant indicates that it is likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from using its trademark. If this is the case, this would be evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith.

The disputed domain name is not being used to display active content but pay-per-click content designed to generate revenue together with wording that indicates that the disputed domain name is for sale. Previous UDRP panels have found that use of disputed domain names to divert Internet users and direct them to a revenue-generating website constitutes evidence of bad faith. An intention to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant or its competitors is evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Policy provides certain remedies to trademark owners against registrants of domain names where the complainant, as the owner of the mark establishes each of the following elements:

(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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Respondent has not filed any response to the Complaint and is therefore in default. The Panel draws the appropriate inference from the absence of reply.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has registered the CARREFOUR trademark in a number of jurisdictions and the Panel finds that these registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name.

In accordance with the earlier UDRP Panel decisions referred to in the second paragraph of the Complainant’s contentions above, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark is well-known.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark as the disputed domain name incorporates the CARREFOUR trademark in its entirety. Previous UDRP Panels have found that a domain name that incorporates a registered mark in its entirety is generally accepted to be confusingly similar to that registered trademark. See Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v mei xudong, WIPO Case No. 2013-0150; RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v InvisibleRegitration.com, Domain Admin, WIPO Case No. D2010-1059.

The Panel finds that the inclusion of the generic or descriptive element “sa” does not assist in distinguishing the disputed domain name from the registered trademark, in particular, as the Complainant’s trademark is well-known. The Complainant is based in France, where the letters “sa” are frequently used to refer to the legal status of certain types of company (société anonyme). The addition of the generic or descriptive element “sa” which refers to the legal form of the company might even increase the risk of confusion for Internet users. Internet users might assume that the disputed domain name is a central website for the Complainant or is used to display the Complainant’s investor or corporate information. Accordingly, the hyphenation of the disputed domain name does not help to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s well-known CARREFOUR mark.

The Panel also finds that the inclusion of the gTLD “.com” in the disputed domain name does not avoid confusing similarity. The gLTD element is technically required in order to operate the domain name and does not serve to identify the source of the goods or services provided by the registrant of the domain name.

The Panel finds that an Internet user might directly associate the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark and this may confuse the public to believe that the disputed domain name is operated by the Complainant or is associated with or endorsed by it.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proof and must establish that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant must establish that there is a prima facie case after which the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Although properly notified by the Center, the Respondent did not submit a response or otherwise attempt to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Where appropriate, the Panel draws adverse inference from this failure.

The Panel finds that, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent was likely to have known or should have known of the existence of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the name CARREFOUR. Neither is there any evidence to indicate that the Complainant has authorised or licensed the Respondent to use the mark CARREFOUR or seek registration of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not demonstrated use, or preparations for use, of the disputed domain name in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services. Nor has the Respondent provided details of any intention of any noncommercial or fair use in respect of the disputed domain name. In these circumstances, the Panel may determine that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case to support the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As the Respondent has not made any attempt to rebut the Complainant’s case, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant’s submission is that it is implausible that the Respondent did not know of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name. As stated above, the Panel finds that CARREFOUR is a well-known trademark throughout the world. On that basis, and without any information to the contrary having been provided by the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent would have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name.

Bad faith may be found where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that, and where it is used by someone with no connection to that trademark, this suggests opportunistic bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. D2010-0138. Bad faith might also be found where the respondent knew or should have known of the complainant’s trademark rights but still proceeded to register a domain name in which he had no right or legitimate interest. See The Gap, Inc v Deng Youqian, WIPO Case No. D2009‑0113. The Panel is persuaded by the Complainant’s submission (which was not rebutted) that the Respondent would have known of the CARREFOUR trademark when the disputed domain name was registered and the Respondent intended to trade off the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation in its CARREFOUR trademark. No explanation was provided by the Respondent as to why it chose to register the word “carrefour” in conjunction with “-sa.com”.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website that provides pay-per-click links and website text that indicates that the domain name is for sale. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the disputed domain name is being used to direct Internet users away from the Complainant’s own website to that of other third parties in order to generate revenue for the Respondent.

The Complainant has also relied upon the fact that the Respondent has not provided any reply to cease-and-desist letters and this is also an indication of bad faith.

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions and finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <carrefour-sa.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Charters Macdonald-Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: December 22, 2015