À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Carrefour v. Lamienne Ambada, Help.com

Case No. D2018-0637

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Lamienne Ambada, Help.com of Marrakesh, Morocco.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <carrefour-messagerie.com> is registered with eNom, Inc. (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 22, 2018. On March 22, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 23, 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 April 5, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 25, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 26, 2018.

The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on May 2, 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 multinational retailer group operating nearly 12,000 stores in more than 30 countries under the trademark CARREFOUR.

The Complainant is the owner of several registrations for the trademark CARREFOUR, including:

- French trademark CARREFOUR No. 1487274, registered on September 2, 1988, that covers services in classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42;

- European Union trade mark CARREFOUR No. 008779498, registered on July 13, 2010, that covers services in class 35; and

- International trademark CARREFOUR No. 1010661, registered on April 16, 2009, covering goods and services in class 35, and notably designating Morocco.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 29, 2017. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends in essence:

- That the disputed domain name <carrefour-messagerie.com> is confusingly similar to its famous trademark CARREFOUR because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, whereas the addition of the descriptive word "messagerie" (which means "email service" in French) does not dispel but rather accentuates the likelihood of confusion because it may lead Internet users to believe that it refers to a Complainant's email system;

- That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because there is no affiliation or other relationship whatsoever between the parties and because the Respondent has not shown any intention of fair use of the disputed domain name;

- That the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because it must have been aware of the Complainant's well-known trademark CARREFOUR;

- That the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by passively holding the disputed domain name which incorporates the famous mark CARREFOUR;

- That the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on November 30, 2017 and that the Respondent did not answer, which reinforces the inference that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements:

(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has shown that it holds several registrations for the trademark CARREFOUR, including French trademark CARREFOUR No. 1487274, registered on September 2, 1988, that covers services in classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42; European Union trade mark CARREFOUR No. 008779498, registered on July 13, 2010, that covers services in class 35; and International trademark CARREFOUR No. 1010661 registered on April 16, 2009, covering goods and services in class 35, and notably designating Morocco.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, because it incorporates in its entirety the trademark CARREFOUR. The French word "messagerie" may be translated as "bulletin board" or (in the context of electronic communication) as "email service". This term is thus descriptive and does not dispel confusing similarity.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant contends, credibly, that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name, and that there is no relationship whatsoever between the Parties. In the absence of any Response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent was not authorized or licensed to use the Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name and that there is no indication of any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

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

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The trademark CARREFOUR has been considered "well-known" or "famous" (Carrefour v. Jan Everno, The Management Group II, WIPO Case No. D2017-0586; Carrefour v. Ali Fetouh, Fasateen, WIPO Case No. D2017-0089; Carrefour v. Tony Mancini, USDIET Whoisguard, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2015-0962; Carrefour v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2015-0769; Carrefour v. Park KyeongSook, WIPO Case No. D2014-1425; Carrefour v. Yujinhua, WIPO Case No. D2014-0257; Carrefour v. Karin Krueger, WIPO Case No. D2013-2002; Carrefour S.A. v. Patrick Demestre, WIPO Case No. D2011-2248; Carrefour v. groupe Carrefour, WIPO Case No. D2008-1996; Carrefour SA v. Eric Langlois, WIPO Case No. D2007-0067).

Considering that the Complainant's CARREFOUR trademark is famous or at least well known, the Panel concludes that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's trademark and that it registered the disputed domain name in opportunistic bad faith.

The word "messagerie" added to the Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name increases the likelihood of confusion because it may lead Internet users to believe that it designates an email or messaging system operated by the Complainant.

The Panel also holds that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant's famous or at least well-known trademark CARREFOUR, constitutes use in bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).

The fact that the Respondent failed to answer to the Complainant's cease and desist letter of November 30, 2018 reinforces the inference of bad faith.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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-messagerie.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: May 7, 2018

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