Jeandis-centreleclerc.shop

The timeline behind jeandis-centreleclerc.shop

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 Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc – A.C.D. Lec v. Stephan Gunther Case No. D2025-5306 1. The Parties The Complainant is Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc – A.C.D. Lec, France, represented by MIIP MADE IN IP, France. The Respondent is Stephan Gunther, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <jeandis-centreleclerc.shop> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 18, 2025. On December 19, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 24, 2025, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 26, 2025, 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 December 29, 2025. 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 January 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 26, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 27, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Nathalie Dreyfus as the sole panelist in this matter on January 30, 2026. 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 Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc – A.C.D. Lec is a French association of supermarkets and hypermarkets chains. The Complainant has about 750 stores in France, located all over the country. It is particularly well-known for its trademark LECLERC in France, which refers to the last name of the founder and promoter of the association, Mr. Edouard LECLERC. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations, including but not limited to: - European Union trademark LECLERC No. 002700656 dated May 17, 2002, and duly renewed since then and covering goods and services in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45; - French trademark LECLERC No. 1307790 dated May 2, 1985 and duly renewed since then and covering goods and services in several classes; The disputed domain name was registered on September 12, 2025, and pointed to the hosting provider’s default page. MX servers were configured. Since the Respondent did not participate in the proceeding, nothing is known other than the Registrar- disclosed details of the Respondent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark LECLERC. The disputed domain name reproduces the trademark LECLERC in its entirety. According to the Complainant, the addition of the name “jeandis”, which directly refers to the French company JEANDIS, which belongs to the Complainant’s organization, and the French generic term “centre” within the disputed domain name does not avoid confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks. The “.shop” extension should be disregarded in analyzing the risk of confusion because it is common practice to ignore the Top Level Domain in determining identity or confusing similarity. Secondly, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no trademark, trade name or other right corresponding to the disputed domain name. Nor has the Complainant given the Respondent permission to use the Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. Indeed, the Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant asserted that at the time of its detection, the disputed domain name was pointing to a registrar's waiting page and MX servers were set up on it. After several actions by the Complainant’s representative, the disputed domain name and the MX servers have been deactivated and the disputed domain name is now pointing to an inactive page. Then, according to the Complainant, the Respondent’s disputed domain name is neither used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or/and services nor constitutes a legitimate noncommercial fair use. page 3 Third, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to the Complainant, it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s activities and of the existence and use of the trademark LECLERC at the time the registration was made because the Complainant’s trademarks are well-known in France and other European countries and the Respondent lives in France. Furthermore, the Complainant considers the concealment of the Respondent's identity to be a sign of bad faith. Finally, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain is being used in bad faith. Indeed, the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. Moreover, Internet users are deprived of any real and substantial offer of goods and/or services because the disputed domain name is inactive. The existence of MX servers led the Complainant to believe that the Respondent could use the MX servers for phishing purposes by sending fraudulent emails. Finally, the disputed domain name disrupts the Complainant’s business and causes harm to the Complainant’s brand image. Indeed, Internet users and especially the Complainant’s customers may wrongly believe that the disputed domain name is linked to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions 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. Indeed, the Panel finds that the entirety of the Complainant’s LECLERC trademark 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. Indeed, although the addition of other terms, here “jeandis” and “centre”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first 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 often 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 forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of page 4 proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward 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 facie 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 forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Indeed, the Panel finds that the Respondent, identified as “Stephan Gunther”, has no known connection to the Complainant and is not commonly known by the name “Leclerc”. The Respondent has no rights in any corresponding trademark, corporate name, trade name, or domain name that would precede the Complainant’s rights. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. However, Panels have previously found that the use of a disputed domain name to resolve to inactive or blank webpage alone, is neither a bona fide offering of good and services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel finds the incorporation of the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, combined with a term referring to one of its affiliated companies and a generic descriptive term such as “centre” — which may be understood by Internet users as referring to a shopping center, retail outlet, or commercial location — is likely to reinforce the false impression of an official point of sale or authorized commercial presence of the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1 Furthermore, the Respondent had the opportunity to provide its arguments in support of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, by failing to file a response, the Respondent has missed this opportunity and the Panel is entitled to draw such inferences from the Respondent's failure. The Panel finds 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 faith. 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 faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Considering the composition of the disputed domain name, which consists of the Complainant’s trademark reproduced in its entirety with the mere addition of the terms “jeandis” and “centre”, and a hyphen, the Panel finds it implausible that the disputed domain name was registered in good faith. The combination of the Complainant’s trademark with the name of one of its affiliated companies and a descriptive term suggesting a commercial location clearly indicates that the Respondent had the Complainant and its business in mind at the time of registration. Such composition cannot reasonably be coincidental and instead points to a deliberate attempt to create an impression of affiliation or endorsement, likely intended to attract Internet users for commercial gain. The Complainant’s trademarks LECLERC are well-known in France for many years and enjoys a great reputation in France and enjoy a reputation in several other European countries where the Complainant runs its business. The Respondent is, according to the available records, a French resident and cannot ignore the existence of the Complainant’s business and the notoriety of its French chain of supermarkets. page 5 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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 name <jeandis-centreleclerc.shop> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nathalie Dreyfus/ Nathalie Dreyfus Sole Panelist Date: February 13, 2026

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