Sodexo-entreprises.store

The timeline behind sodexo-entreprises.store

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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sodexo v. Thomas Stuart Case No. D2024-0874 1. The Parties The Complainant is Sodexo, France, represented by Areopage, France. The Respondent is Thomas Stuart, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <sodexo-entreprises.store> is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 28, 2024. On February 29, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 1, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation f or the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 4, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on March 7, 2024. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 8, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was March 28, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on April 2, 2024. The Center appointed Louis-B ernard Buchman as the sole panelist in this matter on April 10, 2024. The Panel f inds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant, a French company listed on the Euronext stock exchange, which was founded in 1966 by the late Mr. Pierre Bellon, is one of the world leaders in f ood services and f acilities management, with 430.000 employees worldwide daily serving 80 million consumers in 45 countries, and a consolidated turnover in 2023 of EUR 22,6 billion. The Complainant owns rights in a large portf olio of SODEXO trademarks, including inter alia French trademark No. 3513766 registered on July 16, 2007, International trademark registration no. 964615 registered on January 8, 2008, European Union trademark registered under No. 006104657 on June 27, 2008, European Union trademark registered under No. 008346462 on February 1, 2010, and, International trademark registration No. 1240316 registered on October 23, 2014 (together ref erred to hereinafter as: “the Mark”). In addition, the Complainant has registered several domain names, including inter alia <sodexo.com> and <sodexo.fr>. The Respondent is apparently located in France. The disputed domain name was registered on February 25, 2024, and resolved to an inactive page. The Complainant submitted evidence showing that the disputed domain name was used to send email communications impersonating the Complainant. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: (i) the disputed domain name reproduces the Mark, in which the Complainant has rights, and is conf usingly similar to the Mark insofar as the disputed domain name contains the Mark in its entirety. The addition of the term in French “entreprises” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Mark. (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, by which he is not commonly known. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that it never licensed the Respondent to use the Mark in any manner or consented to such use, and that the Respondent never had any business connection or af f iliation with the Complainant. (iii) The Respondent knew of the Mark when registering the disputed domain name and is using it in bad f aith by sending out phishing e-mails. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transf erred to the Complainant. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Aspects - Failure to Respond As af orementioned, no Response was received f rom the Respondent. Under the Rules, paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a), the effect of a default by the Respondent is that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the basis of the Complaint. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it is the Complainant’s burden to establish that all three of the required criteria f or a transf er of the disputed domain name have been met, even in the event of a def ault. Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel is empowered to draw such inf erences f rom the Respondent’s def ault as it considers appropriate under the circumstances. In this case, the Panel finds that as a result of the def ault, the Respondent has f ailed to rebut any of the reasonable factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by the Complainant. In particular, by defaulting and failing to respond, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise, from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, such as making legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the disputed domain name. Moreover, as discussed below, the Respondent has f ailed to provide any exculpatory inf ormation or reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent has acted in bad f aith. 6.2. Requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The entirety of the Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Although the addition of a hyphen and the term in French “entrep rises” here may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the disputed domain name and the Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. It is also well established that a generic top-level domain (“g TLD”) does not generally affect the assessment of a domain name f or the purpose of determining identity or conf using similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11.1. page 4 The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel f inds that the composition of the disputed domain name, combining the Mark with the term in French “entreprises”, carries a risk of implied af f iliation, as it ef f ectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. Moreover, UDRP Panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegal activity, such as phishing as evidenced in this case, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.13.1. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad f aith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Mark, as recognized by many UDRP panels which have declared the Mark to be f amous or well-known (see f or instance Sodexo v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1246780534 / Chivers Michael, WIPO Case No . D2020-0865 ; Sodexo v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / New World, WIPO Case No . DCO2020-0021; Sodexo v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1247228940 / James Lehman, WIPO Case No . D2020-1281; Sodexo v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Krissa Pucket, WIPO Case No . D2020-1315; Sodexo v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1247189803 / NorAm Accounts Receivable, WIPO Case No . D2020-1683; SODEXO v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Zhichao, WIPO Case No . D2020-1762; SODEXO v. Zhichao Yang, WIPO Case No . D2020-2286; SODEXO v. Ashutosh Dwivedi, Food & Beverages, WIPO Case No . D2020-2686; Sodexo v. Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No. D2020-3085; Sodexo v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, WIPO case D2021-0472; Sodexo v. page 5 Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, WIPO Case No . D2021-0485; Sodexo v. Daniela Ortiz, WIPO Nase No . D2021-0628; Sodexo v. Yang Zhichao, WIPO Case No . D2021-0902; Sodexo v. Lloyd Group, WIPO Case No . D2021-1214 and Sodexo v. franck gauthier, WIPO Case No . D2021-3746). As noted above, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or persuasive reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent acted in bad f aith by creating confusion to the detriment of the Complainant by registering the disputed domain name conf usingly similar to the Mark. Prior UDRP panels have also held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may also result from the f act its good faith use is in no way plausible (see Audi AG v. Hans Wolf, WIPO Case No . D2001-0148 ). Considering the reputation of the Complainant’s Mark, and the use of the disputed domain name to send emails impersonating the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind when registering the disputed domain name. In this case, the Panel cannot find any any actual or contemplated good f aith use of the disputed domain name, as its use invariably results in taking unf air advantage of the Complainant’s rights. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No . D2000-0003 . Furthermore, URDP panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as sending out phishing e-mails, like in the present case, constitutes bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad f aith under the Policy. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <sodexo-entreprises.store> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Louis-Bernard Buchman/ Louis-Bernard Buchman Sole Panelist Date: April 15, 2024

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