Carrefour-cle.info, Carrefourfinance.info, Carrefour-france.info

The timeline behind carrefour-cle.info

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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. malber gostavo ctsein and hakim salim Case No. D2022-4261 1. The Parties The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France. The Respondents are malber gostavo ctsein, France and hakim salim, Canada. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names <carrefour-cle.info>, <carrefourfinance.info> and <carrefour-france.info> are registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 9, 2022. On November 9, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 9, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 10, 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 November 10, 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 November 15, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 5, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 6, 2022. page 2 The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on December 8, 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a worldwide leader in retail, operating in more than 30 countries worldwide and listed on the index of the Paris Stock Exchange (CAC 40). The Complainant owns trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including the International trademark CARREFOUR (Reg. No. 351147, registered on October 2, 1968) and the International trademark CARREFOUR (Reg. No. 353849, registered on February 28, 1969). The Complainant further holds the domain name <carrefour.com> under which the official website of the Complainant is available. The Complainant holds various other domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant advertises and sells its services through its <carrefour.com> domain name. The disputed domain name <carrefour-cle.info> was registered on September 21, 2022 and the disputed domain names <carrefourfinance.info> and <carrefour-france.info> were both registered on September 19, 2022. All three disputed domain names resolve to inactive pages. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Based on the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Consolidation of the Respondents The Panel is empowered by paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Rules to consolidate multiple domain names in a single complaint on the basis that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. Past UDRP panels have clarified that paragraph 3(c) of the Rules extends to consolidation of domain names registered by the same person using different fictitious names or aliases (e.g., Yahoo!, Inc v Somsak Sooksripanich and Others, WIPO Case No. D2000-1461 ; Amazon.com, Inc. v. Lorna Kang a/k/a Yong Li a/k/a Mahmoud Nadim a/k/a The Data in Bulkregister.com’s WHOIS Database is p a/k/a Amjad Kausar, WIPO Case No. D2005-0635). page 3 The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same registrant. Having reviewed the evidence, the Panel is of the view that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the disputed domain names are held by the same registrant. The Panel has noted, in particular, that: 1) The disputed domain names were registered only two days apart and all lead to inactive pages; 2) The disputed domain names all include the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety and share the same Registrar, Top-Level-Domain and name servers; 3) The registrant contact information associated with the disputed domain names, in particular the addresses, appear to be fictitious since the Center was unable to deliver the written communication by courier to the contact details disclosed by the Registrar; 4) The Respondents did not submit any response or denial to the allegation that the disputed domain names are registered by the same registrant using fictitious names and details. In view of the above, the Panel determines that the disputed domain names shall be consolidated under this proceeding in accordance with paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Rules, and will refer to “the Respondent” to refer to both entities. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the CARREFOUR trademark. The CARREFOUR trademark is wholly reproduced in the disputed domain names. A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662 ). As stated in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8, “[w]here 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”. Hence, the Panel holds that the addition of the terms and hyphens “-cle”, “finance” or “-france” to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant has thus fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. 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 names. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain names. Furthermore, the composition of the disputed domain names, wholly incorporating the Complainant’s trademark and the terms and hyphens “-cle”, “finance” or “-france”, cannot constitute fair use in these circumstances as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.5.1. The Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. page 4 D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. The totality of the circumstances in each case will be examined, and factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing of its identity or use of false contact details, and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put (see WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.3). Under the circumstances of this case, including the composition of the disputed domain names and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel finds that the Respondent was most likely aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not submitted any response, and the Panel sees no plausible good faith use to which the inherently misleading disputed domain names may be put. Further, the Respondent seems to have provided false contact details when registering the disputed domain names, since the Center was unable to deliver the written communication by courier to the address disclosed by the Registrar. Hence, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant and the goodwill it has obtained for its trademark CARREFOUR. The Panel also notes that screening of trademark registrations is readily available through online databases (or by a mere Internet search) to avoid the registration of trademark-abusive domain names. In the totality of circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has therefore registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has also fulfilled 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 names <carrefour-cle.info>, <carrefourfinance.info> and <carrefour-france.info> be transferred to the Complainant. /Tobias Zuberbühler/ Tobias Zuberbühler Sole Panelist Date: December 19, 2022

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