About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid eMadrid Reference Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


Carrefour v. Milen Radumilo / Privacy Inc. Customer 0151725578

Case No. D2018-2203

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Carrefour of Boulogne-Billancourt, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.

The Respondent is Milen Radumilo of Bucharest, Romania / Privacy Inc. Customer 0151725578 of Toronto, Canada.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <carrefourt.com> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 28, 2018. On September 28, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 28, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact 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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 3, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 23, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 24, 2018.

The Center appointed Dietrich Beier as the sole panelist in this matter on October 30, 2018. 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 leading retailer in Europe and operates more than 12,300 stores and e-commerce sites in more than 30 countries. The Complainant employs more than 38,000 people worldwide and generated EUR 88.4 billion in sales in 2017. Every day, the Complainant welcomes around 13 million customers around the world.

The Complainant is the proprietor of several trademarks for CARREFOUR, inter alia the International Registration 1010661, registered on April 16, 2009 for class 35 in several countries.

The disputed domain name currently resolves to a parking page with sponsored links related to the Complainant’s field of activities where it is also offered for sale. However, it also redirects seemingly randomly to the official e-commerce website of the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant, inter alia, claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well known trademark CARREFOUR since the domain name completely reproduces the trademark.

The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has he been authorised or licensed by the Complainant to use and register its trademark CARREFOUR or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the aforesaid trademark. Accordingly, the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant argues, inter alia, the disputed domain name being registered and used in bad faith, since it seems implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the well known trademark of the Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name. Further, the Respondent has been involved in various UDRP disputes where panels found that he has registered and used domain names in bad faith. Since the disputed domain name randomly redirects to the Complainant’s official website, not only an application in bad faith, but also use in bad faith is established.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established the fact that it has valid trademark rights for CARREFOUR in several classes.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to these marks of the Complainant since the disputed domain name incorporates the entire trademark and the additional letter “t” at the end does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark in view of the given phonetical and visual similariy of the signs.

The Panel therefore considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark CARREFOUR in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name, since the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant nor has the Complainant granted any permission or consent to the Respondent to use its trademarks. Furthermore, the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, since there is no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “Carrefourt” nor that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Given that the Complainant’s mark is well known, what many panels have decided (among other recently Carrefour v. Jan Everno, The Management Group II, WIPO Case No. D2017-0586), a view being shared by the present Panel, the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant and its trademarks when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant had not authorized the Respondent to make use of its marks and to register the disputed domain name. This Panel does not see any conceivable legitimate use that could be made by the Respondent of this particular disputed domain name without the Complainant’s authorization.

Further, the circumstances of this case, in particular the offer to sell the disputed domain name on the website under the disputed domain name as well as the links to competitors in the field of the Complainant indicate that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name primarily with the intention of attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website or location, or of a product or service on such website or location. The Panel therefore considers the disputed domain name to have been registered and used in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

This Panel finds, accordingly, that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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 <carrefourt.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dietrich Beier
Sole Panelist
Date: November 13, 2018