WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Carrefour SA v. Jurgen Neeme, [email protected], Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Silvia Neeme and Jay Neeme

Case No. D2020-2088

1. The Parties

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

The Respondents are Jurgen Neeme, [email protected], Estonia; Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org), Unites States of America (“Unites States”) / Silvia Neeme, Germany; and Jay Neeme, Unites States.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain names <carrefouer.com> and <carretour.com> are registered with NameSilo, LLC; the disputed domain names <carrecour.com>, <carrwfour.com> and <xarrefour.com> are registered with Sav.com, LLC; and the disputed domain names <caarrefour.com>, <carrerfour.com>, <carrerour.com>, <carerefour.com>, <carrefoir.com>, <ccarrefour.com>, <carrsfour.com> and <www-carrefour.com> are registered with Dynadot, LLC, NameSilo, LLC, Sav.com, LLC and Dynadot, LLC are collectively referred to as “the Registrars” hereinafter.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 6, 2020. On August 6, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 6 and 7, 2020, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondents and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 10, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrars, and inviting the Complainant to amend the Complaint adding the Registrar-disclosed registrants as formal Respondents and provide relevant arguments or evidence demonstrating that all named Respondents are, in fact, the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control; and/or file a separate complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 11, 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 12, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 1, 2020. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on September 2, 2020.

The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on September 14, 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 a well-known retailer that trades under the name “Carrefour” and operates more than 12,000 stores with around 1.3 million daily visitors in more than 30 countries.

The Complainant owns many trade marks for CARREFOUR, including international trade mark No. 351147, registered on October 2, 1968, in classes 1 to 34.

The disputed domain names were all registered on June 16, 2020.

When visited by the Panel, the disputed domain names resolved to parking pages with pay-per-click (“PPC”) links to websites offering a range of goods and services or redirected to a variety of third party websites.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The following is a summary of the Complainant’s contentions:

The Complainant enjoys a substantial, long-standing reputation.

The disputed domain names are highly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trade marks. This is a clearcut typo-squatting case.

The Respondents lack rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

The Complainant has not authorised the Respondents to incorporate its trade mark into the disputed domain names. The Respondents own no relevant trade marks and there is no evidence that the Respondents have been commonly known by the disputed domain names.

The Respondents have not used the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods and services. On the contrary, the Respondents have offered many of the disputed domain names for sale at a price in excess of USD 4,000.

The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

It is obvious that the Respondents registered the disputed domain names with the Complainant’s well-known trade marks in mind and in order to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks.

The number of disputed domain names subject to this Complaint is of itself strong evidence of a pattern of bad faith behaviour.

The Respondent Jurgen Neeme has previously been found to have registered and used in bad faith a domain name that corresponded to the Complainant’s trade mark.

The Respondents have also engaged in a pattern of typo-squatting conduct vis-à-vis other trade marks.

The disputed domain names constitute a passive holding in bad faith.

B. Respondents

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:

- the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights;

- the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

- the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

A. Consolidation

The principles governing the question of whether a complaint may be brought against multiple respondents are set out in section 4.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names are subject to common control, including on the grounds that the registrant name of each of the disputed domain names includes the same surname, “Neeme”, the disputed domain names are all similar typo-squatting variations of the Complainant’s trade mark and all were registered on the same date. The Panel considers that, in the circumstances, consolidation is fair and equitable to all Parties, and also procedurally efficient. Unless specified otherwise, the Respondents will be referred to as “the Respondent” hereinafter.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established rights in the mark CARREFOUR by virtue of its registered trade marks as well as unregistered trade mark rights deriving from the extensive and worldwide use of that name.

Section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 makes clear that a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trade mark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for the purposes of the first element. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark.

Here, the disputed domain names either substitute a letter in the trade mark or add a single letter – or, in the case of <www-carrefour.com>, adding “www” and a hyphen before the trade mark.

For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

As explained in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the consensus view is that, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If not, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.

Here, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use its trade mark.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples of circumstances which, if proved, suffice to demonstrate that a respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Panel has concluded below that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking the Complainant’s products and services. Such use of the disputed domain name could not be said to be bona fide.

Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy apply in the circumstances of this case.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests and there is no rebuttal by the Respondent.

The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that the Complainant has therefore established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

It is obvious that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known trade mark in mind, as the disputed domain names are all typo-squatting variations of the Complainant’s trade mark.

In a previous UDRP case, the Respondent has been found to have registered and used in bad faith a domain name that corresponded exactly to the Complainant’s trade mark. See Carrefour SA v. Jurgen Neeme, WIPO Case No. DWS2020-0002.

The Respondent has also engaged in a pattern of typo-squatting behaviour vis-à-vis other trade mark owners. See Facebook, Inc. and Instagram, LLC and WhatsApp Inc. v. Jay Neeme, Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian.org, Jurgen Neeme, [email protected], WIPO Case No. D2020-0403, and Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC, WhatsApp Inc., Facebook Technologies, LLC v. Jurgen Neeme, [email protected] and Jay Neeme, WIPO Case No. D2019-1582.

The Respondent has not come forward to deny the Complainant’s assertions of bad faith. It is difficult to conceive of any legitimate reason why the Respondent would wish to register the disputed domain names and the Respondent has offered no explanation.

In the Panel’s view, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy applies. By using the disputed domain names, comprising typo-squatting variations of the Complainant’s distinctive trade mark, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark.

The name Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 <caarrefour.com>, <carerefour.com>, <carrecour.com>, <carrefoir.com>, <carrefouer.com>, <carrerfour.com>, <carrerour.com>, <carretour.com>, <carrsfour.com>, <carrwfour.com>, <ccarrefour.com>, <www-carrefour.com> and <xarrefour.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Adam Taylor
Sole Panelist
Date: September 27, 2020