WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Carrefour SA v. Black Diamond

Case No. D2020-1388

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins S.A.S., France.

The Respondent is Black Diamond, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <carefourfr.com> is registered with Metaregistrar BV (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 1, 2020. On June 2, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 3, 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 June 6, 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 June 8, 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 June 10, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 30, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 1, 2020.

The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on July 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

The Complainant owns and operates retail hypermarkets. The Complainant began business in 1968 and now operates more than 12,000 stores in more than 30 countries. The Complainant has 384,000 worldwide employees and receives over 1.3 daily visitors to its sores. The Complainant’s Facebook page is liked by more than 11 million Internet users.

The Complainant owns the trademark CARREFOUR (the “Mark”) that is subject to numerous registrations including the following International trademark registrations:

- International trademark CARREFOUR No. 351147, registered on October 2, 1968, duly renewed, and designating goods in International classes 1 to 34; and

- International trademark CARREFOUR No. 353849, registered on February 28, 1969, duly renewed and designating services in International classes 35 to 42.

The Complainant owns numerous domain names incorporating the Mark. The domain name of Complainant’s principal website, <carrefour.com>, was registered in 1995.

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on April 20, 2020. The disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website offering for sale computer virtual servers.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the Mark, except for an omitted letter “r”, and added the expression “fr” as a suffix. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant specifically denies providing any permission or authority for the Respondent to use the Mark or the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known by the Mark and has not conducted any bona fide business or activity in connection with the Mark or the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant asserts the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith to attract unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:

(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.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.

The disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s Mark with the exception that one letter “r” is omitted and the term “fr” is added as a suffix. A minor misspelling (known as typosquatting) and the appendage of a common abbreviation, in this case “fr” (standing for France), does not dispel confusing similarity when attached to a widely recognized trademark. Carrefour v. Zhuhai Yingxun Keji Limited / Paul Loutin, Loutin SAS,WIPO Case No. D2018-1949 (transferring <banque-carefour.com> and <banquecarefour.net>). See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at section 1.8 (“Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”). See also Morgans Group LLC v. Sanderson Morrison / Domain Admin, PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2013-1323; Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc. / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2017-0782; Jeanne Lanvin v. Yap Su Lang, Lanvin Bridal,WIPO Case No. D2019-0670 (transferring <lanvinbridal.com>).

The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has specifically disavowed providing the Respondent with permission to use the disputed domain name or the Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not conduct business at the address provided to the Registrar. The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint and has failed to come forth with any evidence showing any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.1.

The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

The Panel finds on the evidence presented that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to falsely lure and attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. The disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website offering computer virtual servers for sale. It strains credulity to believe that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s well-known Mark and willy-nilly composed the disputed domain name by dropping one of the “r” letters from the Mark and adding “fr” when there is no evidence of the Respondent conducting any bona fide business under the disputed domain name prior to its registration. Typosquatting itself gives rise to an inference of bad faith. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC d/b/a Redbox v. Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-1600 (transferring <eedbox.com>).

An elementary Internet search would have disclosed the Complainant’s Mark. Furthermore, the reputation of the Mark and composition of the disputed domain name lead the Panel to find that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name intending to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s Mark amounting to registration in bad faith under the Policy. The Mark is sufficiently distinctive such that it is difficult to conceive of any use that the Respondent might make of the disputed domain name without the Complainant’s consent that would not involve bad faith. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Finally, in response to the Complainant’s cease and desist letters, the Respondent merely attempted to seek payment for the disputed domain name, which under the circumstances of this case gives rise to an inference that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. SpirigPharma AG v. Whois privacy services, provided by DomainProtect / Alexander Zinovjev, WIPO Case No. D2014-1612.

The Complainant has met its burden under 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 <carefourfr.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: July 27, 2020