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. Kimo Nile

Case No. D2017-0259

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Kimo Nile of Giza, Egypt, self-represented.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <carrefourofferstoday.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 10, 2017. On February 10, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 13, 2017, 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 February 14, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 6, 2017. An email communication was sent by the Respondent to the Center on February 15, 2017. On February 16, 2017, the Complainant forwarded a request for suspension of the proceeding to the Center. The proceeding was suspended by the Center on February 17, 2017. The proceeding was reinstituted at the request of the Complainant on March 16, 2017. The due date for Response was extended accordingly to April 2, 2017. No formal Response was filed with the Center. The Center notified the parties the commencement of the Panel Appointment process on April 3, 2017.

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on April 11, 2017. 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 best known retailers in Europe and has developed strong rights in its mark CARREFOUR. The Complainant has expanded its market into the Middle East and North Africa, including Egypt (where the Respondent is located). It owns numerous registrations for its CARREFOUR mark, including International trademark CARREFOUR, No. 563304, registered on November 6, 1990, duly renewed, protected in Egypt and covering goods and services in classes 1 to 42.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 30, 2014, and has used the disputed domain name to establish a website that provides advertising links to websites for various goods and services. The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use the CARREFOUR mark.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademarks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not file a formal Response. However, the Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on February 15, 2017, with the following message:

"Hello sir

First sorry for this problem.

and sure you can take this domain without any problems .

Thanks

Best Regards"

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) The disputed 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 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 undoubtedly has rights in the mark CARREFOUR, as evidenced by its trademark registrations referred to above. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to this mark. It contains the mark in its entirety, accompanied only by the descriptive terms "offers" and "today" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com", all of which do nothing to meaningfully distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's mark for purposes of the UDRP. Accordingly, the Panel finds in favor of the Complainant on this first element of the UDRP.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant may succeed under this element of the UDRP if it makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and if that prima facie showing remains unrebutted by the Respondent. In this case, there are several indicators concerning the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is there any evidence in the record showing the Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice of the dispute. Joining with numerous previous UDRP panels, this Panel finds that in circumstances such as the ones of this case, the use of the disputed domain name to establish a web page with advertising links to websites for other products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. These assertions establish the Complainant's prima facie case. The Respondent has not answered the Complainant's assertions, and, seeing no basis in the record to overcome the Complainant's prima facie showing, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this second UDRP element.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Because the Complainant's mark is so well known, it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of the CARREFOUR mark when it registered the disputed domain name. It is among the most recognizable retail brands in the world, having been in widespread use for many years, including in Egypt, where the Respondent is located. In the circumstances of this case, the evidence is sufficient to establish bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. Bad faith use is clear from the Respondent's activities of using the disputed domain name to link website visitors to the sale of products on other websites (see paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully met this third UDRP element.

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 <carrefourofferstoday.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: April 24, 2017

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/