WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Carrefour SA v. Milen Radumilo
Case No. D2020-1107
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins S.A.S., France.
The Respondent is Milen Radumilo, Romania.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <carrefoursolucoesfinanceiras.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 4, 2020. On May 5, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 8, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 8, 2020 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 May 11, 2020.
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 May 11, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 31, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 1, 2020.
The Center appointed Olga Zalomiy as the sole panelist in this matter on June 4, 2020. 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 French multinational company, which specializes in retail services. In addition, the Complainant offers banking, travel, ticketing, and other services. The Complainant is the registered owner of several CARREFOUR trademarks, which include:
-the International Registration No. 563304, registered on November 6, 1990;
-the International Registration No. 1010661, registered on April 16, 2009;
-the European Union Registration No. 005178371, registered on August 30, 2007.
The Respondent registered the Domain Name on March 21, 2020. The Domain Name resolves to a parking webpage displaying pay-per-click (“PPC”) links of financial services and a link “buy this domain”. Clicking on the “buy this domain” link redirects Internet users to a domain name broker website.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark because the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The Complainant argues that the addition of the words “soluções financeiras” into the Domain Name, which mean “financial solution” in Portuguese, would not prevent finding of confusing similarity because the Complainant owns many trademarks for financial services. The Complainant submits that inclusion of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” into the Domain Name also does not prevent finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark because the gTLD is the standard registration requirement and should be disregarded as such.
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name because the Respondent has no trademark rights in the Domain Name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is using the Domain Name without a license or authorization from the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is not used in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services, because the Domain Name resolves to a parking webpage displaying PPC links and an offer to third parties to buy the Domain Name.
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with the knowledge of the Complainant’s existence and its trademarks because the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark is well-known. The Complainant claims that the Respondent had the Complainant’s name and trademark in mind when registering the Domain Name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent chose the Domain Name because of its high similarity to the Complainant’s trademarks to attract Internet users searching for the Complainant’s services or products, to the Complainant’s website at the Domain Name. The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the Domain Name to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademarks in the corresponding Domain Name. The Complainant asserts that its trademark significantly predates the registration of the Domain Name, so he registered the Domain Name with knowledge of the Complainant’s intellectual property rights in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP, to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The submitted evidence shows that the Complainant owns a trademark registration for the CARREFOUR trademarks. Pursuant to section 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), this satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case.
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark, the words “solucoes financeiras” and the gTLD “.com”. Where the complainant’s mark is included in its entirety in a disputed domain name1 and the only deviation from this is the inclusion of numbers, letters or a dictionary term2 as a prefix or a suffix, such prefix or suffix does not avoid the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark. It is well-established, that the applicable gTLD should be disregarded under the confusingly similarity test as a standard registration requirement.3
Because the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark is included in its entirety in the Domain Name, inclusion of the dictionary terms “solucoes financeiras”, which mean “financial solutions” in Portuguese, does not negate the confusing similarity. The gTLD “.com” should be disregarded from the assessment of confusing similarity. Therefore, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark.
The Complainant has satisfied the first element of the UDRP.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
To demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, non-exclusive respondent defenses under UDRP paragraph 4(c) include the following:
(i) before any notice of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
To prove the second UDRP element, the Complainant must make out a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent.
The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The evidence on file shows that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent has not had a permission or authorization from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark in domain names.
Nor has the Respondent used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. It is well-established among UDRP panelists that “the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users”4 . Here, the Respondent is using the Domain Name comprised of the Complainant’s trademark and the words describing the Complainant’s services, to direct to a parked page comprising of PPC links that offer financial services similar to those of the Complainant.
The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name because the Respondent is most likely deriving commercial gain from the PPC links and intends to profit from its offer to sell the Domain Name that is displayed on the website at the Domain Name.
Further, the Respondent has been engaged in a pattern of registering domain names corresponding to the Complainant’s trademark, which also shows lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See, Carrefour v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0153822170 / Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-0762; Carrefour v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2020-0409; Carrefour v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0153824515 / Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-2280; Carrefour v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0153830825 / Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-1591; Carrefour S.A. v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2018-2818.
Because the Complainant has made out the prima facie case, the burden of producing evidence demonstrating it has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, has shifted to the Respondent. The Respondent has failed to present any rebutting evidence.
The Panel concludes that the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the UDRP.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP provides that any one of the following non-exclusive scenarios constitutes evidence of a respondent’s bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.
The Panel finds that it is likely that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with the intent to profit from the Complainant trademark’s goodwill and reputation because the Respondent registered the Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark, to direct Internet users to a PPC website that displays sponsored links of financial services and a link “buy this domain”. Clicking on the “buy this domain” link redirects Internet users to a domain name broker website.
Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith because the Respondent, who has engaged in a pattern of abusive domain name registration, has registered the Domain Name to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name. It is well-established among UDRP panelists that a pattern of conduct preventing a trademark holder from reflecting its trademark in a domain name is found where a respondent, on separate occasions, has registered trademark abusive domain names, even where directed at the same brand owner5 . Here, the Respondent registered domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark on multiple occasions. Carrefour v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2020-0409; Carrefour v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0153822170 / Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-0762; Carrefour v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0153824515 / Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-2280; Carrefour v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0153830825 / Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-1591; Carrefour S.A. v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2018-2818.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant satisfied the third element of the UDRP.
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 Domain Name <carrefoursolucoesfinanceiras.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Olga Zalomiy
Sole Panelist
Date: June 17, 2020
1 Section 1.7, WIPO Overview 3.0.
2 Section 1.8, WIPO Overview 3.0.
3 Section 1.11.1, WIPO Overview 3.0.