Carrefour-ae.com

The timeline behind carrefour-ae.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Carrefour SA v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Jacob Harold Case No. D2022-1282 1. The Parties The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France. The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America (“United States”) / Jacob Harold, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <carrefour-ae.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 April 11, 2022. On April 11, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 12, 2022, 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 April 12, 2022, 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 April 19, 2022. 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 April 20, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 10, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 12, 2022. The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on May 25, 2022. 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a worldwide leader in retail and a pioneer of the concept of hypermarkets since 1968, with a turnaround of EUR 76 billion in 2018, the Complainant operates more than 12000 stores in more than 30 countries with over 384000 employees worldwide. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark CARREFOUR, registered inter alia as the International Registration No 353849 as of February 28, 1969, based on French registration No. 747725 with priority from September 27, 1968, and designating various countries in Europe. The Complainant’s trademark has been found to be well known by several prior UDRP panels. The disputed domain name was registered on March 11, 2022. The disputed domain name resolves to an error page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety together with the term “ae”, which can be perceived by Internet users as the two-letter country code for United Arab Emirates, where the Complainant is commercially present through its website at “www.carrefouruae.com”. The domain name <carrefouruae.com> was registered by the Complainant in 2000. The Complainant’s trademark is immediately recognizable in the disputed domain name and the addition of “ae” does not diminish the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and is not commonly known by it. The Respondent has not used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services because the disputed domain name only resolves to an error page. Because of the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name. It is highly likely that the Respondent chose the disputed domain name because of its similarity to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and legitimate interests. This was most likely done in the hope that Internet users searching for the Complainant’s services would instead come across the Respondent’s website. The Respondent should therefore have known that acquiring and using the disputed domain name would be a violation against the Complainant’s earlier rights. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to obtain the transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, regardless of whether the respondent files a response to the complaint or not. The first element is that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The second element a complainant must prove is that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. page 3 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. Consequently, the Complainant must prove that it has rights to a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark. According to section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), “[t]he applicable Top Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test”. Furthermore, “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term(s) may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements”. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 . The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, which is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. The addition of the term “ae”, which would be recognized as the country code for United Arab Emirates, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark. This means that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. It is widely accepted among UDRP panels that once a complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the Policy. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270, and section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 . The Complainant has credibly submitted that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has it been authorized by the Complainant to use and register the disputed domain name, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not made and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. Moreover, the Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant’s trademark. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 . Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Considering the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that there are no other circumstances that provide the Respondent with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: page 4 “(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or [the respondent has] acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location.” The Panel agrees with the Complainant and previous panels that the Complainant’s trademark is a well- known trademark within the Complainant’s industry. It is therefore inconceivable that the Respondent would not have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith, as in this case. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 . The disputed domain name resolves to an error page. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is not in active use, see e.g., Accenture Global Services Limited v. Domain eRegistration, WIPO Case No. D2018-1994 . This, however, does not prevent the finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. See section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 . Considering that the Panel has found that the Complainant’s trademark is well known, the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint, the Respondent has used a privacy protection service to conceal its identity, there are no obvious good faith or legitimate uses to which the disputed domain name may be put, the Panel considers, on balance, that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy is fulfilled. 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, <carrefour-ae.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. /Tuukka Airaksinen/ Tuukka Airaksinen Sole Panelist Date: June 8, 2022

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.