Westmore · UDRP DecisionXn--sodxo-6ra.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <sodèxo.com>, finding it confusingly similar to the SODEXO trademark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. The decisive evidence was its use for scam emails intended to obtain undue payments by creating confusion with the Complainant.
The timeline behind xn--sodxo-6ra.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The decision illustrates that a minor accented-character substitution in an internationalized domain name does not avoid confusing similarity where the trademark remains recognizable. It also shows that email-based fraud can independently establish abusive use even when no active website is present.
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. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1247189803 / NorAm Accounts Receivable Case No. D2020-1683 1. The Parties The Complainant is Sodexo, France, represented by Areopage, France. The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1247189803, Canada / NorAm Accounts Receivable, United States of America (the “United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <sodèxo.com> [xn--sodxo-6ra.com] (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 26, 2020. On June 26, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 27, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 8, 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 July 9, 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 July 21, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 10, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 11, 2020. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on August 19, 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 one of the largest companies in the world specialized in foodservices and facilities management, with 470,000 employees serving 100 million consumers in 67 countries. From 1966 to 2008, the Complainant promoted its business under the SODEXHO mark and trade name. In 2008, the Complainant simplified the spelling of its mark and name to SODEXO. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for SODEXO, inter alia , International trademark registration no. 964615 registered on January 8, 2008 and International trademark registration no. 1240316 registered on October 23, 2014. The Complainant is present in many countries, including in United States where the Respondent appears to be located. The Domain Name was registered on June 3, 2020. The Complainant has provided evidence that the Domain Name has been used to send fraudulent emails in an attempt to obtain undue payments. At the time of the Complaint and the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name was inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations and that the trademark has a strong, international reputation. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is almost identical to the mark and company name SODEXO, save the accent on the central vowel. This difference is so small that the Complainant believes it will be unnoticed by Internet users. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name as it has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has used the Domain Name to send scam emails to third parties to try to fraudulently obtain undue payments. The Complainant believes the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s activity and trademark, due to the well-known character and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark. By registering the Domain Name, the Respondent was seeking to create a likelihood of confusion with the trademark to attempt to mislead third parties, inter alia , through setting up an email account from the Domain Name to send scam emails. This constitutes bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark SODEXO. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, with the addition of an accent on the central vowel. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”; see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11 . The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of its mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to send scam emails is clearly not bona fide . The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Domain Name is almost identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent by registering the Complainant’s trademark in the Domain Name was seeking to create a likelihood of confusion with the trademark to mislead third parties, evidenced by the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to set up an email account to send out scam emails. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of 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 Domain Name <sodèxo.com> [xn--sodxo-6ra.com] be transferred to the Complainant. Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: August 25, 2020
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around xn--sodxo-6ra.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.