WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Carrefour SA v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Aqeel Qazi, XSESHOP

Case No. D2021-4408

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 / Aqeel Qazi, XSESHOP, Saudi Arabia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <carrefour-bnq.xyz> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 30, 2021. On December 30, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 30, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 4, 2022 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 January 10, 2022.

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 January 14, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 3, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 7, 2022.

The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on February 9, 2022. 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 retailer (also offering banking, insurance and ticketing services) based in France. It developed the hypermarket concept in 1968 and is publicly listed on the Paris Stock Exchange. The Complainant operates more than 12,000 stores in more than 30 countries. With more than 321,000 employees worldwide and 1.3 million daily unique visitors to its stores and a turnover of EUR 78 billion in 2020, the Complainant is a significant international retailer.

The Complainant owns numerous trade mark registrations worldwide for its CARREFOUR mark, including International Trade Mark No. 351147 for CARREFOUR registered on October 2, 1968 which is designated in several countries, French Trade Mark No. 3585968 for BANQUE CARREFOUR, registered on July 2, 2008 and French Trade Mark No. 3585950 for CARREFOUR BANQUE & ASSURANCE registered on July 2, 2008. The Complainant owns the domain name <carrefour.com> from which it operates its main corporate website, and also the domain name <carrefour-banque.fr>. It enjoys a very considerable social media presence.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 27, 2021 and resolved to a website under construction at the time of filing the Complaint.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that it owns registered rights in its CARREFOUR trade mark as noted above. It says that the CARREFOUR mark is wholly incorporated in the disputed domain name and is therefore confusingly similar to it. It says that the addition of the term “-bnq” is a common abbreviation for “banque” (bank in French) and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. It says that the Top Level Domain (gTLD) “.xyz” has no significance to this determination.

The Complainant submits it has found no evidence whatsoever that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name or that it owns any registered trade mark rights for CARREFOUR or BANQUE CARREFOUR. It also says that there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name as an individual, business, or other organization. Neither, submits the Complainant, has it authorised the use by the Respondent of the CARREFOUR, BANQUE CARREFOUR or CARREFOUR BANQUE & ASSURANCE marks or any similar terms, whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. It also says that the Respondent has not, before the original filing of the Complaint, used or made preparations to use the disputed domain name in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services and that use to resolve to a simple placeholder page does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services.

As the adoption and extensive use by the Complainant of the CARREFOUR, BANQUE CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR BANQUE & ASSURANCE marks predates the registration of the disputed domain name, considering the substantial degree of renown attaching to the CARREFOUR mark, and that a simple online search yields top results only related to the Complainant, the Complainant submits that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s mark and business when it registered the disputed domain name.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name has also been used in bad faith. It says that not only is the Respondent preventing the Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name but the passive use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent to resolve to a website under construction is, in all of the circumstances, use in bad faith. In this regard, the Complainant says that relevant factors include that its CARREFOUR mark is well-known, that the Respondent has failed to file a response to the Complaint, and has used a privacy service to try to conceal its identity.

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 that it owns registered trade mark rights for its CARREFOUR mark, including International Trade Mark No. 351147 for CARREFOUR, registered on October 2, 1968. The CARREFOUR mark is wholly incorporated in the disputed domain name and is therefore confusingly similar to it. The addition of a hyphen and the abbreviation in French for bank “bnq” does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR mark and the fact that the disputed domain name is registered in the “xyz” gTLD does not affect the position.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint succeeds under this element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has submitted that it has found no evidence whatsoever that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name or that it owns any registered trade mark rights for CARREFOUR or BANQUE CARREFOUR. It has also submitted that there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name as an individual, business, or other organization. The Complainant has also contended that it has not authorised the use by the Respondent of the CARREFOUR, BANQUE CARREFOUR or CARREFOUR BANQUE & ASSURANCE marks or of any similar terms, whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. It has also submitted that the Respondent has not, before the original filing date of the Complaint, used or made preparations to use the disputed domain name in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services and that use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a simple placeholder page does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As the Complainant’s case has not been rebutted by the Respondent, the Panel finds for these reasons and as set out under Section C below, that the Complainant has successfully made out its case and that the Complaint also succeeds under this element of the Policy

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name was registered on September 20, 2021, many years after the registration of the Complainant’s international registration for CARREFOUR in 1968 or indeed after the registration of the BANQUE CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR BANQUE & ASSURANCE marks in 2008. It is also notable that many previous UDRP panels have held that the Complainant enjoys a substantial reputation attaching to its CARREFOUR mark.

Considering the very substantial size of the Complainant’s international business under the CARREFOUR mark (including its banking business under the BANQUE CARREFOUR or CARREFOUR BANQUE & ASSURANCE marks) and the degree of renown attaching to it, the considerable online presence of the Complainant’s business and that its existence would have been revealed by a simple online or trade mark search and also the high degree of distinctiveness of the French term “carrefour” when used in relation to retail or banking services, the Panel finds that it is most likely that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s business and mark when it registered the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name resolves to a placeholder site and there is no evidence that it has been actively used by the Respondent to date. The Complainant submits that this amounts to a passive holding of the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Factors that previous panels have found as relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine and which are set out at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (Third Edition) include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.

In this case, the CARREFOUR mark is highly distinctive and enjoys a very considerable degree of renown in a number of countries. The Respondent has failed to submit a response or to provide any evidence of contemplated good faith use and has sought to conceal its identity using a privacy service. Finally, the disputed domain name contains both the Complainant’s very distinctive CARREFOUR mark and an obvious abbreviation for bank in French being the letters “bnq”. In circumstances that the Complainant has an established banking business operating under the BANQUE CARREFOUR or CARREFOUR BANQUE & ASSURANCE marks and has not authorised the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has failed to provide any explanation for its registration, it seems highly implausible that the Respondent could have any plausible explanation for the use in good faith of the disputed domain name. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been passively held in bad faith.

Having found that that the disputed domain name has been both registered and used in bad faith, the Panel finds that the Complaint also succeeds under his element of the Policy.

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 <carrefour-bnq.xyz> be transferred to the Complainant.