Westmore · UDRP DecisionSodexogroup.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <sodexogroup.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the well-known SODEXO mark because it incorporated the mark with the descriptive suffix “group,” a term also used by the Complainant in describing itself. The Complainant established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent’s use of the domain to divert traffic to websites offering competing and similar services for commercial gain constituted bad-faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The timeline behind sodexogroup.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The decision illustrates a straightforward application of the UDRP where a well-known mark is reproduced in full, a descriptive term associated with the trademark owner is appended, and the resulting domain is used for commercial links to competing services. The case also shows how a respondent’s default leaves a properly established prima facie case on rights or legitimate interests unrebutted.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sodexo v. DomainJet, Inc., Jack Sun Case No. D2013-2187 1. The Parties The Complainant is Sodexo of Issy-Lesmoulineaux, France, represented by Arépage, France. The Respondent is DomainJet, Inc., Jack Sun of Mountain View, California, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <sodexogroup.com> is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 17, 2013. On December 17, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 19, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 7, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for response was January 27, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 28, 2014. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on February 13, 2014. 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 largest food services and facilities management companies in the world, with 420,000 employees in 80 countries, and holds various registrations for its trademark SODEXO (and the formerly used trademark SODEXHO) dating back to October 15, 2001, designating among other countries the United States, where the Respondent is domiciled. The disputed domain name was created in April 2009 and is connected to a website offering links, inter alia , to competitors of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant In summary, the Complainant contends the following: The addition of the word “group” in the disputed domain name is inoperative to distinguish it from the Complainant’s marks, because in the disputed domain name <sodexogroup.com>, the sign “Sodexo”" remains dominant. The risk of confusion is all the higher since the Complainant describes itself as “Sodexo Group” on its main website. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it has no rights in “Sodexo” as corporate name, trade name, shop sign, mark or domain name that would have any priority to the Complainant’s rights. The Respondent is not commonly known under the disputed domain name, does not have any affiliation, association, sponsorship or connection with the Complainant and has not been authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to register or use the disputed domain name. Due to the well-known character and reputation of the SODEXO mark, it is very unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowing of the existence of the Complainant and its trademarks. It cannot be excluded that when registering and using the disputed domain name, the Respondent’s purpose was plainly to transfer it to the Complainant or one of the Complainant’s competitors for valuable consideration. Furthermore, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to unrelated websites offering competing and similar services to those of the Complainant, for the purpose of achieving commercial gain, which constitutes bad faith registration and use. Finally, it seems that the Respondent has been involved in several UDRP procedures, because the Respondent is used to register well-known trademarks as domain names. This can also be considered as demonstrating the Respondent’s bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is comprised of the Complainant’s well-known trademark SODEXO and the suffix “group”. UDRP panels have consistently held that the addition of merely generic or descriptive terms to a trademark in a domain name would be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions , Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 1.9 ). This is all the more true here because the Complainant describes itself as “Sodexo Group” on its main website “www.sodexo.com”. The Complainant has thus fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. Based on the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made a prima facie case which remains unrebutted, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to unrelated websites offering competing and similar services to those of the Complainant, for the purpose of achieving commercial gain. Such conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Complainant has also satisfied 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 <sodexogroup.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Tobias Zuberbühler Sole Panelist Date: February 26, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around sodexogroup.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.