Westmore · UDRP DecisionMonoprix-gratuit.net
The Panel ordered transfer of <monoprix-gratuit.net>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the MONOPRIX mark because it incorporated the mark in full and added the French term “gratuit,” meaning “free.” The Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests, and the domain had been registered and used in bad faith to attract Internet users through a purported survey promising a EUR 250 check.
The timeline behind monoprix-gratuit.net
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind monoprix-gratuit.net — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how adding a promotional term to a trademark can strengthen rather than reduce confusing similarity and support a finding of deliberate targeting. Here, “gratuit” connected the domain to the promise of free goods or benefits for a largely French-speaking audience, while the survey and reward offer supplied evidence of bad-faith use.
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 MONOPRIX v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Ashok Chand Case No. D2018-2635 1. The Parties The Complainant is MONOPRIX of Clichy, France, represented by Watrin Brault Associés, France. The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America / Ashok Chand of Faridabad, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <monoprix-gratuit.net> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 16, 2018. On November 16, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 16, 2018, 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 November 19, 2018 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 23, 2018. 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 December 5, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 25, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 27, 2018. The Center appointed Nicolas Ulmer as the sole panelist in this matter on January 14, 2019. 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 French commercial enterprise specialized in the sale and distribution of food, cosmetics, textiles and other products, both online and in stores. The Complainant has been operating for more than 40 years, and the name “Monoprix” has been its registered company name since 1971. The MONOPRIX trademark was registered (registration number 3658321) with the French Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle , in numerous classes, on June 18, 2009, and this registration has been subsequently renewed. In the pursuit of its business the Complainant registered the domain name <monoprix.fr> in October 1996, and this domain name is still active. Little is known about the Respondent, who on the basis of the information obtained from the registrar appears to be an individual resident in India. The Complainant submits information from Google Street View and Linkedin which suggests that the Respondent may be a Quality UP engineer. The disputed domain name was registered on July 4, 2018. The disputed domain name resolved to a webpage where the Internet user is invited to answer a “survey” in consideration of a promised EUR 250 check. Currently, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active webpage. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical to the point of causing confusion with its well-known trademark and company name. The Complainant further advances that the Respondent does not and cannot have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and, to the contrary, has been using the disputed domain name for fraudulent and illegitimate purposes, notably pretending to be the Complainant in order to obtain Facebook data from Internet users. Thereupon the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was both registered and used in bad faith, notably by making an unauthorized use of the Complainant’s trademark in order to attract and take advantage of Internet users. On October 4, 2018 the Complainant’s lawyer sent an email complaining of the Respondent’s practices and unauthorized use of the Complainant’s trademark, but received no reply. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. 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 begins with and contains the entirety of the Complainant’s trademarked company name, which is well known in France. The additional of the suffix “ - gratuit” does not diminish the confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark, and arguably increases it, as “gratuit"in French means “free” in English, thus suggesting to Internet users that MONOPRIX is offering free products or services. The element of paragraph 4 (a)(i) of the Policy is accordingly here demonstrated and proven. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complaint makes clear that the Complainant has not authorized or in any way licensed the Respondent to use its trademark, and convincingly alleges that the Respondent’s actual use of the same has been fraudulent. The Complaint and its annexes explain a scheme whereby the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage where the Internet user is invited to answer a phoney “survey” in consideration of a promised EUR 250 check. The purpose of this survey is, the Complaint explains, to “phish” for the user’s Facebook data. While this activity is clearly not a demonstration of rights or legitimate interests it is even more relevant to bad faith use, as discussed in the following section of this decision. The Respondent is obviously not known as “Monoprix-gratuit”, nor is there here any indication that the Respondent was using, or could use, the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services. It is well established in UDRP decisions that a complainant needs to establish at least a prima facie case that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. See Section 2.1 , WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ; accord, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd. , WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 . Where such a prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See also, Meizu Technology Co., Ltd. v. “osama bin laden” , WIPO Case No. DCO2014-0002 ; H & M Hennes & Mauritz AB v. Simon Maufe, Akinsaya Odunayo Emmanuel and Nelson Rivaldo , WIPO Case No. D2014-0225 . As the Complainant has here asserted at least such a prima facie case, and there is nothing in the case file that would rebut or contradict it, the Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered long after the Complainant’s company and commercial name, MONOPRIX, was well known in retail and online sales, and some 10 years after the Complainant registered its trademark. The choice of the disputed domain name can hardly be accidental or serendipitous. Rather it was obviously chosen with a goal of profiting from the notoriety and goodwill of the Complainant’s name and trademark by attracting Internet users who recognized it. The addition of the suffix “gratuit” further demonstrates this, as it is obviously placed in the disputed domain name in order to entice the Complainant’s largely French-speaking client base with a suggestion of free goods or services. The use of the disputed domain name, as documented by the Complainant and described in section 6 B., above, demonstrates a bad faith use of the Complainant’s well-known trademark to attract Internet users with the promise of a EUR 250 check. It is, moreover, difficult on the facts here to conceive of any good faith use to which the Respondent could make of the disputed domain name. See Carrefour v. Saran Malki and Patrice Laura , WIPO Case No. D2017-2265 . It follows from the above that the elements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) if the Policy are here proven. 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 <monoprix-gratuit.net> be transferred to the Complainant. Nicolas Ulmer Sole Panelist Date: January 22, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around monoprix-gratuit.net
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.