Sodexouk.com

The timeline behind sodexouk.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sodexo v. Joe LINK Case No. D2026-2387 1. The Parties The Complainant is Sodexo, France, represented by Areopage, France. The Respondent is Joe LINK, Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <sodexouk.com> is registered with NETIM SARL (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 2, 2026. On June 3, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 4, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Unkno wn) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. Tvhe Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 4, 2026, 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 June 5, 2026. 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 June 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 25, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on July 6, 2026. The Center appointed WiIliam A. Van Caenegem as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 2026. The Panel f inds 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 company founded in 1966 in France and is one of the largest corporations in the world specialized in food services and f acilities management. It has more than 426,000 employees serving 80 million consumers daily in 43 countries. In f iscal year 2025, consolidated revenues were 24,1 billion euros which represents by region: 46% North America, 36% Europe, and 18% f or the rest of the world. In 2008, SODEXHO changed the spelling of its mark and name to SODEXO and changed its logo. The mark is used in relation to f ood services and f acility management services. The Complainant has multiple registration for the mark, including SODEXO in Hong Kong, trademark registration n° 300997516 f iled on November 21, 2007, and registered on May 11, 2009, relying on the priority of the French trademark registration n° 073513766 of July 16, 2007, renewed in 2017 in international classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45; International trademark registration n° 964615 for SODEXO registered on January 8, 2008 relying on the priority of the French trademark registration n° 073513766 of July 16, 2007, renewed in 2018, in international classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 and protected in many countries; and European Unio n trademark registration for SODEXO f iled on June 8, 2009 and registered on February 1, 2010 under n° 008346462, renewed in 2019 in international classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45. The Complainant also has multiple device mark registrations that include the term SODEXO. The Sodexo group utilizes a number of domain names including <sodexo.com>, <uk.sodexo.com>, <sodexoprestige.co.uk>, <sodexo.fr>, <sodexoca.com>, <sodexousa.com>, <cn.sodexo.com>, <sodexho.fr>, and <sodexho.com>. The disputed domain name <sodexouk.com> was created on May 21, 2026, and resolves to an imitation web site looking like an of f icial Sodexo’s web site. 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 the disputed domain name is composed of the sign SODEXO associated with the letters “uk” which are obviously understood by consumers as the abbreviation f or United Kingdom. The Complainant says that for that reason, the disputed domain name is understood as ref erring to the Complainant’s activities in the United Kingdom. The Complainant adds that the addition of the element “uk” in the disputed domain name is obviously not sufficient to distinguish it from the Complainant’s marks. The Complainant adds that it is widely recognized that the addition of a generic or descriptive term to a mark will not alter the fact that the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to the mark in question. The Complainant therefore contends that because of the identical reproduction of the SODEXO mark, the public will believe that the disputed domain name <sodexouk.com> comes f rom the SODEXO group or is linked to SODEXO. The Complainant says that the likelihood of conf usion between the disputed domain name and the SODEXO mark is further increased as the Respondent us es the SODEXO mark and a similar logo on a fake website which looks like an official SODEXO website, to which the disputed domain name resolves. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it has no rights to SODEXO as a corporate name, trade name, shop sign, mark or domain name that would exist prior to the Complainant’s rights in relation to SODEXO. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name prior to the adoption and use by the Complainant of the corporate name, business name and mark SODEXO / SODEXHO. The Complainant adds that the Respondent does not have any af f iliation, association, sponsorship or connection with the page 3 Complainant and has not been authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted by the Complainant or by any subsidiary or af f iliated company to register the disputed domain name and to use it. The Complainant points out that the sign SODEXO is purely fanciful and nobody could legitimately choose this word or any variation thereof, unless seeking to create an association between their activities and the SODEXO mark. The Complainant contends that because of the well-known character and reputation of the SODEXO / SODEXHO mark, the Respondent obviously knew of its existence when it registered the disputed domain name and was perfectly aware that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and could not lawf ully use it. The Complainant surmises that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is created to be used as a scam, and to obtain payment from clients or consumers into f ake Sodexo bank accounts. The Complainant asserts that the said website has been created to make the public believe that the disputed domain name is linked to a SODEXO official website. The Complainant says this amounts to f raudulent use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant concludes by stating that it assumes the Respondent’s aim is to perpetrate phishing attacks with the disputed domain name, and that the unauthorized registration of the disputed domain name with the aim of f raudulent use is f or the purpose of commercial gain and thus constitutes bad f aith registration and use. 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 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to the SODEXO mark of the Complainant f or the purposes of the Policy. Although the addition of other terms here, the geographic abbreviation “uk”, 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 3.1, sections 1.7. and 1.8. 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 that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the dif f icult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the page 4 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 satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 Respondent was not authorized to incorporate the distinctive SODEXO trademark of the Complainant in any domain name, and there is nothing to indicate that it is known by the disputed domain name or the term SODEXO or had acquired any rights in the latter bef ore registration of the disputed domain name. Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name f or illegitimate activity, here claimed as the establishment of an imitation website that replicates the SODEXO mark and logo of the Complainant without permission, can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has acquired a domain name that incorporates a very distinctive and widely known trademark belonging to the Complainant. A simple google and/or trademark search would make the rights of the Complainant in the SODEXO mark immediately apparent. The combination with the abbreviation “uk” standing f or United Kingdom f urther indicates that the Respondent, at the time of registration, was f ully aware what the SODEXO mark stands f or and who has exclusive rights in it. 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. Here, the disputed domain name resolves to an imitation website that replicates the distinctive SODEXO trademark of the Complainant and also its logo that incorporates that term combined with a distinctive device element. It is not possible to imagine a legitimate reason to establish such a shadow website and more likely than not the Respondent’s intent is to take advantage of Internet users who mistake it for a legitimate site of the Complainant, and to obtain some f inancial advantage f rom them by so misleading them. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <sodexouk.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /WiIliam A. Van Caenegem/ WiIliam A. Van Caenegem Sole Panelist Date: July 24, 2026.

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