WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Carrefour SA v. DotMedia Limited
Case No. D2020-0898
1. The Parties
Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins S.A.S., France.
Respondent is DotMedia Limited, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <catalogocarrefouronline.com> is registered with DropCatch.com LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 10, 2020. On April 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 15, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the 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 April 17, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 7, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on May 10, 2020.
The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on May 13, 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
A. Complainant
Complainant, Carrefour SA, France, is a company incorporated in Massy, France. Founded in 1968, Carrefour is one of leaders in retail and hypermarkets. It is listed on the index of Paris Stock Exchange (CAC 40) with a turnaround of EUR 76 billion in 2018. Complainant operates more than 12,000 stores in more than 30 countries worldwide. It has more than 384,000 employees worldwide and 1.3 million daily unique visitors in its stores.
The CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR related marks have been registered worldwide, including International registration (e.g., International trademark registration number 351147, registered October 2, 1968) (Annexes 2-4 to the Complaint).
Complainant and/or CARREFOUR also registered domain names which contain the CARREFOUR trademark. For example, CARREFOUR operates an interactive website accessible at the domain name <carrefour.com>, which has been registered since 1995 (Annex 7 to the Complaint).
B. Respondent
Respondent is DotMedia Limited, China.
The disputed domain name <catalogocarrefouronline.com> was registered by Respondent on February 25, 2020. The disputed domain name resolved to a website with links to Internet gambling services and to pornographic content in Chinese (Annexes 10-11 to the Complaint). The Panel notes that currently the website at the disputed domain name is inactive.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <catalogocarrefouronline.com> is confusingly similar to the CARREFOUR trademark. Simply employing the addition of words “catalogo” (which is the Spanish translation of the word “catalog”) and “online” with the CARREFOUR trademark does not inhibit the finding of confusing similarity.
Complainant contends that Respondent can articulate no rights in the CARREFOUR trademarks.
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
On the basis of the evidence introduced by Complainant and in particular with regard to the content of the relevant provisions of the Policy (paragraphs 4(a)-(c)), the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the CARREFOUR marks. The disputed domain name <catalogocarrefouronline.com> comprises the CARREFOUR mark in its entirety. The disputed domain name only differs from Complainant’s trademarks by the prefix “catalogo” (the Spanish translation of the world “catalog”), the suffix “online”, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” to the CARREFOUR marks. This does not compromise the recognizability of Complainant’s marks within the disputed domain name, nor eliminate the confusing similarity between Complainant’s registered trademarks and the disputed domain name (Decathlon v. Zheng Jianmeng,
WIPO Case No. D2019-0234).
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name”. (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0662).
Further, in relation to the gTLD suffix, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) further states: “The applicable Top Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.” (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11)
The Panel therefore holds that Complaint fulfils the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish Complainant’s trademarks.
The overall burden of proof on this element rests with Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP panel decisions that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden of production shifts to respondent to rebut complainant’s contentions. If respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. (Danzas Holding AG, DHL Operations B.V. v. Ma Shikai,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0441; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1 and cases cited therein).
The CARREFOUR marks have been registered in France since 1965 and internationally since 1968, which precede Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name (in 2020). According to the Complaint, Carrefour is one of leaders in retail and hypermarkets. It was listed on the index of Paris Stock Exchange (CAC 40) with a turnaround of EUR 76 billion in 2018. It operates more than 12, 000 stores in more than 30 countries worldwide. It has more than 384,000 employees worldwide and 1.3 million daily unique visitors in its stores.
Moreover, Respondent is not an authorized dealer of CARREFOUR branded products or services. Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby shifted the burden to Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0610; Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
Based on the following reasons the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
(a) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has not provided evidence of a legitimate use of the disputed domain name or reasons to justify the choice of the term “catalogocarrefouronline” in the disputed domain name and in its business operation. There has been no evidence to show that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the CARREFOUR marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the CARREFOUR marks.
(b) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2020, long after the CARREFOUR marks became internationally known. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the CARREFOUR marks.
(c) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. By contrast, the website, currently resolves to a website with the links to online gambling services and to porn pictures (Annexes 10-11 to the Complaint). It seems that Respondent is making profits through the Internet traffic attracted to the website under the disputed domain name. (See BKS Bank AG v. Jianwei Guo,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1041; BASF SE v. Hong Fu Chen, Chen Hong Fu,
WIPO Case No. D2017-2203)
The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore holds that Complaint fulfils the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) Respondent has registered the disputed 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the website or location.
The Panel concludes that the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are applicable to the present case and upon the evidence of these circumstances and other relevant circumstances, it is adequate to conclude that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(a) Registration in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the CARREFOUR marks have widespread reputation in retail and hypermarkets industry. As mentioned above, CARREFOUR marks are registered internationally, including in France (since 1965). It operates more than 12,000 stores in more than 30 countries worldwide, including China. It is not conceivable that Respondent would not have had actual notice of the CARREFOUR marks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name (in 2020). The Panel therefore finds that the CARREFOUR mark is not one that a trader could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra).
Moreover, Respondent has chosen not to respond to Complainant’s allegations. According to UDRP previous panel decisions “the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith”.
See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra, and also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0787.
Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
(b) Use in Bad Faith
Complainant also has adduced evidence to show that by using the confusingly similar disputed domain name, Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location”. To establish an “intention for commercial gain” for the purpose of this Policy, evidence is required to indicate that it is “more likely than not” that such intention existed (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra).
As noted above, the disputed domain name has been used to attract Internet users seeking Complainant’s websites displaying contents of online gambling actives as well as pornographic photos, presumably for the commercial gain of Respondent. Such conduct falls squarely within the language of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Further, given the lack of response, the Panel cannot envision any other plausible use of the disputed domain name that would not be in bad faith under the present circumstances. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, the Panel concludes that current inactive use of the disputed domain name by Respondent is in bad faith also.
In summary, Respondent, by choosing to register and use the disputed domain name, intended to ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademark in an attempt to exploit, for commercial gain, Internet users destined for Complainant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from Respondent, the choice of the disputed domain name and the conduct of Respondent as far as the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel therefore holds that Complaint fulfils the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
7. Decision
For all 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 <catalogocarrefouronline.com> be transferred to Complainant.
Yijun Tian
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 26, 2020
1 https://www.carrefour.cn/
