Westmore · UDRP DecisionEleclerc.space
The Panel ordered transfer of <eleclerc.space>. It found the domain identical for purposes of the Policy to the Complainant’s registered and well-known E LECLERC mark, found no rights or legitimate interests because there was no authorization, evidence that the Respondent was commonly known by the domain, or qualifying use, and found bad-faith registration and use based on passive holding of a domain incorporating the well-known and distinctive mark in the circumstances presented.
The timeline behind eleclerc.space
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 eleclerc.space — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how an exact-match domain incorporating a well-known and distinctive mark may satisfy the UDRP even without an active website or proven phishing. The Panel relied on the high risk of implied affiliation for the rights-or-legitimate-interests analysis and on passive holding, the character of the mark, and the absence of any Respondent explanation for bad faith.
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 Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc - ACD Lec v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Reda El Kasraoui Case No. D2021-1389 1. The Parties The Complainant is Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc - ACD Lec, France, represented by Inlex IP Expertise, France. The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Reda El Kasraoui, Morocco. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <eleclerc.space> (“the Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 5, 2021. On May 5, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 5, 2021, 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 May 10, 2021 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 May 14, 2021. 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 May 18, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 7, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 8, 2021. The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on June 17, 2021. 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 the owner of the mark E LECLERC registered, inter alia , as an European Union (“EU”) trade mark Registration No. 2700664 for retail services since January 31, 2005. The Complainant is one of the most renowned chain of supermarkets and hypermarkets stores in France. The Domain Name registered on January 1, 2021, does not resolve to an active web site but has been set up for email, as evidenced by active MX records. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant is the owner of the mark E LECLERC registered, inter alia , as an EU trade mark Registration No 2700664 for retail services since 2005. It has been used in relation to retail supermarkets for over 70 years and the mark is well known. The Domain Name registered on January 1, 2021, is identical to the Complainant’s mark adding only the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.space”. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it, and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active web site but has been set up for email which could be used for phishing. Internet users may associate the Domain Name with the Complainant and think that the site is a site of the Complainant which is not working or is hacked which is harmful to the Complainant’s goodwill. The Domain Name has been registered and used to take advantage of the Complainant’s well-known mark and was registered using a privacy service which is also an indication of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s E LECLERC mark (which is registered, inter alia , as an EU trade mark for retail services services since 2005) and the gTLD “.space”. The mark is well known and distinctive for retail services. The gTLD “.space” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. A gTLD is a necessary part of a domain name and is typically disregarded for purposes of the first element analysis. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is identical for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use its E LECLERC mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. There has been no use of the Domain Name and so no bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s E LECLERC mark in its entirety. UDRP panels have found that domain names identical for the purposes of the Policy to a complainant’s trademark carry a high risk of implied affiliation. That being said, the use of the Domain Name cannot constitute fair use, seeing as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be entitled to register and hold a domain name containing the Complainant’s E LECLERC trade mark which is well known and distinctive for retail services. The Domain Name has not been used. Passive holding of a Domain Name containing a trade mark which is well known and distinctive in these circumstances does not prevent and supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy. As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. 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, <eleclerc.space> be transferred to the Complainant. Dawn Osborne Sole Panelist Date: June 18, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around eleclerc.space
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.