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 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

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Carrefour SA v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / gazi dulal, gazi dulal

Case No. D2021-2929

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France.

The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / gazi dulal, gazi dulal, Spain.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <carrefoure.store> and <carrefoure.work> are registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 6, 2021. On September 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 6, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 13, 2021, 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 September 17, 2021.

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 September 21, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 11, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 13, 2021.

The Center appointed Kathryn Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on October 20, 2021. 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 multinational retail corporation which operates more than 12,000 hypermarkets, groceries, and convenience stores in over 30 countries. It has 384,000 employees worldwide and 1.3 million unique visitors in its stores daily. Further, it is listed on the Paris Stock Exchange and had a turnaround of 76 billion Euros in 2018.

The Complainant owns several trademarks worldwide including the term CARREFOUR, including the following:

- International Trademark CARREFOUR No. 351147 registered on October 2, 1968, in classes 01 to 34; and
- International Trademark CARREFOUR No. 353849 registered on February 28, 1969, in classes 35 to 42.

The Respondent appears to be an individual with an address in Spain.

The disputed domain names <carrefoure.store> and <carrefoure.work> were registered on May 9, 2021, and do not resolve to any active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the CARREFOUR trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Namely, the Complainant asserts that it owns a number of trademark registrations for CARREFOUR dating back to 1968, and that the disputed domain names are comprised of this exact mark with the addition of the letter “e” at the end. The Complainant asserts that given the fame of the CARREFOUR trademark, it is recognizable within the disputed domain names, which are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and confirms that it has not authorized or licensed rights to the Respondent in any respect.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are used in bad faith. The Complainant explains that CARREFOUR is among the most famous trademarks in the world and the Respondent could not have been unaware of the Complainant at the time of registration. Rather, it is more likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in order to use them in a way which would be detrimental to the Complainant. Further, the Respondent has made no use of the disputed domain names which should be taken as evidence of bad faith considering the overall circumstances.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has demonstrated with supporting evidence that it holds trademark registrations for CARREFOUR in numerous jurisdictions from as early as 1968 (which significantly precedes the registration of the disputed domain names). The disputed domain names entirely incorporate the Complainant’s mark CARREFOUR, and each simply adds the letter “e” at the end, which could even be considered a case of typosquatting. Previous UDRP panels have concluded that a domain name that consist of an intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered similar to the relevant trademark for the purposes of the first element. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9.

The Panel also notes the use of the Top Level Domains (“TLDs”) “.store” and “.work”, and that for purposes of the first element the applicable TLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.

Above all, the mark is plainly recognizable in each of the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

For the reasons mentioned above, the Panel finds that the first element has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

On the basis of the present record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required allegations to support a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case has been established, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant. However, the Respondent in this case has chosen to file no substantive Response to these assertions by the Complainant, and there is no evidence or allegation in the record that would warrant a finding in favor of the Respondent on this point.

The Panel moreover notes that given the fame of the Complainant, the fact that the disputed domain names are typos of such mark, and the use of TLDs that give an impression of a site coming from the Complainant, there is little doubt the Respondent sought to unfairly take advantage of the Complainant.

Further, there is no evidence of any history of bona fide use of the disputed domain names or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

For the reasons provided above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the second element has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that there are sufficient reasons to find bad faith in this case.

First, the Complainant is one of the largest retailers in the world and it is highly unlikely for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain names without being aware of the Complainant, especially since the Respondent appears to be located in Spain, where the Complainant operates numerous Carrefour stores. Rather, especially with no response to claim otherwise, it is more probable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with the intention of benefiting from the fame of the mark in some way see e.g., UDRP paragraph 4(b)(iv). Indeed, there would not seem to be any plausible non-infringing explanation for the registration of the disputed domain names.

For the reasons given above, the Panel finds that the third element has been established.

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 names, <carrefoure.store> and <carrefoure.work> be transferred to the Complainant.

Kathryn Lee
Sole Panelist
Date: November 1, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/