ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Carrefour SA v. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc.
Case No. D2024-1653
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France.
...Justin Ourso III
Panelist
Date: July 4, 2024
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Carrefour SA v. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc.
Case No. D2024-1653
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2024-07-12 - Case Details
B. de Boer, Jaspisdreef 20, Emmen, DR 7828 CG (The Netherlands).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is "nike-shoes.com" [hereinafter referred to as the Domain Name].
...The Panel further determines that Respondent's failure to use the domain name also supports a finding of bad faith use under the Policy. (See Telstra Corp., Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows., Case N° D2000-0003.)
7. ...
2000-12-29 - Case Details
Thus, it is not surprising that in BMW AG v. Loophole,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1156, the panel rejected such an argument in remarks that seem applicable to the present case:
“The Respondent has failed to produce evidence of any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...Nor did such an argument avail the respondent in FIFA v. Andy Muffy,
WIPO Case No. DTV2001-0031, in seeking to retain the domain name , to contend that his business was “commonly known as “Forrestry Information Forum of Australia”.
...
2008-01-18 - Case Details
The Center verified that the 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").
...It is well-established that the inclusion of a gTLD does not give any distinctiveness to a domain name (citing Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Brendla Hawkins,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0603).
The Complainants also note that the merger between Numericable and SFR has been covered by media all over the world during the last months and particularly the days before the Respondent registered the disputed domain names. ...
2014-10-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Bob Phua, Cambodia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with
GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AMERICAN AIRLINES Mark;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2022-03-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Oneandone Private Registration of Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania, United States of America (“United States”) / Mike Burton of Los Angeles, California, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”).
3. ...It has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the VR|46 Mark or a mark similar to the VR|46 Mark. ...
2017-05-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Magnum Domains, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The disputed domain name was registered on July 20, 2010.
The evidence provided by the Complainant indicates that, at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed
domain name resolved to a page offering to sell the disputed domain name. ...
2025-03-31 - Case Details
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”).
...UDRP panels have declined to find “fair-use” or bona fide use when the trademark per se has been used in the disputed domain name by a respondent for commentary (considering the nature of the disputed domain name). See Puravankara Projects Limited v. ...
2018-12-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Lloyd Group, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The only differences between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s name come from the reversal of the last letters “x” and “o” and the addition of the letter “s” in the Domain Name. ...
2021-06-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Discount Heating, of Plymouth, Devon, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with Tucows Inc.
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), 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").
...
2003-07-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is Deer Valley Mini Storage of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States, internally represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with FastDomain, Inc.
3. ...However, due to exceptional circumstances recently experienced by the Panel, the Panel extended the deadline to August 23, 2012.
This dispute concerns one domain name, specifically (the “disputed domain name”).
4. Background - Prior decision
The Complaint in this proceeding is essentially a re-filing of a complaint previously filed on August 17, 2011 in Public Storage v. ...
2012-09-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mel Light of Los Angeles, California, United States, and Domains By Proxy, Inc. of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
3. ...As the panel in Dr. Ing. H.c.F. Porsche AG v. Vasily Terkin,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, noted, "a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant's registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusingly similarity for purposes of the UDRP.” ...
2012-03-28 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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”).
...First, it has rights in the SAINT-GOBAIN trade marks, corporate name, and domain name in numerous countries worldwide which predate the April 2020 registration dates of the disputed domain names.
5.A.7 Second, there is no evidence that Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names, or either of them, before being put on notice of the Complaint. ...
2020-09-15 - Case Details
In Turkcell Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. v. GWT,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0614, the panel observed:
“…the full incorporation of the trademark in the domain name is sufficient to make a finding of confusion between the trademark and the domain name.”
...In Danisco A/S and Genencor International, Inc. v. Bong-Gyu Jeong,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0973, the disputed domain name was and the panel held:
“The disputed domain name is merely a combination of the two asserted trademarks in their entireties. ...
2011-01-26 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name nor does the Respondent have any authorization from the Complainant to register the Domain Name. ...
2019-06-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The addition of the term “it” is not sufficient to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Trade Mark as “wetransfer” remains the dominant part of the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2017-10-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Thanh minh Dinh, Links45guide, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...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”).
...
2022-03-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Admin Code, Code Originate Co., Ltd., Thailand.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...It further claims the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It argues that the registration and the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent are in bad faith and, therefore, requests the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant accordingly.
...
2019-09-11 - Case Details
The Respondents are Sergey Popov, Russian Federation (First Respondent) and Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., the Bahamas (Second Respondent).
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names (first disputed domain name) and (second disputed domain name) are registered with Nicenic International Group Co., Limited; the disputed domain name (third disputed domain name) is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (collectively the “Registrar”).
3. ...The website to which the first disputed domain name resolves is in English, the website of the third disputed domain name is in Russian. Apart from the language difference, it otherwise appears to be very similar to the website to which the first disputed domain name resolves. ...
2020-02-14 - Case Details
Names 1 of Ramdaspeth, Maharashtra, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Fabulous.com.
3. ...The Center verified that the 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”).
...
2010-06-29 - Case Details