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 v. Simon Lundgren

Case No. DAE2014-0001

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Simon Lundgren of Berlin, Germany.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <carrefour.ae> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with AE Domain Administration (.aeDA).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 18, 2014. On February 18, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to AE Domain Administration (.aeDA) a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On February 28, 2014, .aeDA 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 UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy for – UAE DRP approved by .aeDA (the “Policy”), the Rules for the UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - UAE DRP (the “Rules”), and the Supplemental Rules for UAE Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - UAE DRP (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 5, 2014. To correct an administrative error, the Complaint was again notified to the Respondent on March 27, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 16, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 17, 2014.

The Center appointed Michael D. Cover as panelist in this matter on April 28, 2014. 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 one of the largest retailers in Europe and the world and, since its creation in 1959, it has developed marketing operations in more than 30 countries and employs over 360,000 people. The Complainant operates under four store formats, hypermarkets, supermarkets, convenience stores and cash and carry shops for professionals.

The Complainant established its business in Dubai in 1995 and works with a franchise partner, the Majid Al Futtaim Group, which opened a large Carrefour Market in Dubai in 2013 and which also operates over 100 Carrefour stores in various formats in 14 countries.

The Complainant owns, operates and communicates through various websites in order to promote and provide its services, including “www.carrefourae.com” and “www.carrefour.com”.

The Complainant is the proprietor of various registered trademarks for CARREFOUR in Class 35, including an International Trademark, a (European) Community trademark and a trademark in the United Arab Emirates.

The Respondent is Simon Lundgren of Berlin, Germany.

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page displaying commercial links, certain of which are related to shopping products and/or services of the Complainant and its competitors.

The Complainant attempted to resolve this matter by sending a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, but no response was ever received.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that its trademark CARREFOUR enjoys a worldwide reputation and, in particular, a notorious reputation in the United Arab Emirates. It goes on to state that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR and reproduces that trademark in its entirety.

The Complainant also notes that successive administrative panels have found that the mere addition of a gTLD or country-code Top Level Domain, such as “.ae” is not an element to be taken into consideration in the assessment of similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR. The Complainant concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to its trademark CARREFOUR, in which it has rights.

The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. In particular, the Complainant notes that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not in any way been authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark CARREFOUR.

The Complainant goes on to state that the Respondent is neither commonly known by the name “Carrefour”, nor in any way affiliated with the Complainant, nor authorized or licensed to use the CARREFOUR trademark. The Complainant notes that the Respondent has not demonstrated use or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Complainant notes that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page with pay-per-clicks, which are likely to generate revenues. The Complainant notes that the Respondent did not respond to its cease and desist letter and points out that prior Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) panels have repeatedly stated that, when respondents do not avail themselves of their rights to respond to a complainant, it can be assumed that the respondent in question has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Complainant cites in support AREVA v. St James Robyn Limoges, WIPO Case No. D2010-1017 and Nordstrom, Inc and NIHC, Inc v. Inkyu Kim, WIPO Case No. D2003-0269. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered in bad faith. It states that it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR when the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant also submits that the CARREFOUR trademark is well known throughout the world and that it is incorporated in its entirety in the Disputed Domain Name, which demonstrates that the Respondent must have been aware of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR, which would have been revealed by a quick trademark search. The Complainant submits that the Panel should infer bad faith from the fact that the Disputed Domain Name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark.

The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is being used in bad faith. It points to the fact that the Respondent should have known of the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR and nonetheless went ahead and registered the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant notes that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to direct Internet users to a webpage displaying commercial links relating to shopping products and/or services of the Complainant and/or its competitors. It notes that several UDRP panels have decided that the use of a domain name to point to a website providing services or goods which are similar to those offered by the Complainant’s own website is evidence of bad faith. The Complainant concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant requests that the Panel issue a decision that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Complainant is required to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark CARREFOUR, in which it has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR, in which the Complainant has registered rights for the purposes of the Policy. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR in its entirety. The addition of the suffix “.ae” has no influence on considering whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical (or indeed confusingly similar) to the Complainant’s trademark in which it has rights, and the Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission in that regard.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use its trademark.

There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has, before notice of the dispute, made demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

There is also no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or that it has made legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark. The evidence is quite to the contrary, in that the Disputed Domain Name pointed to a parking website, which offered the goods and services of the Complainant and competitors. There is evidence therefore that the Respondent has, by the use of the parking service, sought to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to that website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR.

C. Registered or is Being Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR is well known, and the Panel infers that the Respondent must have known of it when registering the Disputed Domain Name. As has already been noted in this Decision, the use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with the parking website establishes on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent has sought to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to that website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 6 of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <carrefour.ae> be transferred to the Complainant.

Michael D. Cover
Panelist
Date: May 12, 2014

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/