WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Carrefour v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp.

Case No. D2019-2020

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Carrefour, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., Bahamas.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <carrfour.com> is registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 19, 2019. On August 19, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 26, 2019, 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 August 27, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 16, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 17, 2019.

The Center appointed Rodrigo Velasco Santelices as the sole panelist in this matter on September 27, 2019. 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 leaders in food retail. The Complainant based the Complaint on its trademark CARREFOUR for which the Complainant currently owns several trademark registrations, as per Annex 4 to the Complaint. For example, the Complainant owns rights in French trademark CARREFOUR No. 1487274, registered on September 2, 1988, duly renewed, and covering services in classes 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45; European Union trademark CARREFOUR No. 008779498, registered on July 13, 2010, covering services in class 35, and European Union trademark CARREFOUR No. 005178371, registered on August 30, 2007, duly renewed, and covering goods and services in classes 9, 35, and 38.

Further, and besides the trademark registrations, the Complainant also operates several domain names reflecting its trademark CARREFOUR in order to promote its services (described in Annex 5 to the Complaint), such as <carrefour.com>, and <carrefour.fr>.

This disputed domain name <carrfour.com> was registered on November 2, 2006.

The Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR has been considered to be “well-known” by numerous previous UDRP panels.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website with pay-per-click links. Those links redirect towards a variety of websites which at times correspond to parking pages displaying sponsored links related to the Complainant, such as “Carrefour Dubai” or “Carrefour Hypermarket”. The disputed domain name is also offered for sale. Also, the links at the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, at times redirect to the Complainant’s official website at “www.carrefour.fr”.

Furthermore, after investigations made by the Complainant, it has been revealed that an e- mail server has been configured on the disputed domain name.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that is a global leader in food retail with its headquarters in France. Since it was founded in 1958, the Complainant has acquired considerable goodwill and renown worldwide, in connection with a wide range of services, including supermarkets and banking and insurance services. The Complainant operates more than 12,300 stores and e-commerce sites in more than 30 countries. It is a multi-local, multi-format and omni-channel retail group that employs more than 375,000 people worldwide and generated EUR 88,24 billion sales. Every day, Carrefour welcomes around 104 million customers around the world (evidence in Annex 3 to the Complaint).

A pioneer in countries such as Brazil in 1975 and China in 1995, the Complainant currently operates in three major markets: Europe, Latin America and Asia. It has a presence in more than 30 countries and generates more than 53% of its sales outside France.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademark CARREFOUR in which the Complainant has rights (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i); Rules, paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1)).

The Complainant owns numerous CARREFOUR trademark registrations around the world.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR which has been considered to be “well-known” or “famous” by numerous previous panels (Carrefour v. Jane Casares, NA, WIPO Case No. D2018-0976, Carrefour v. WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard Protected / Robert Jurek, Katrin Kafut, Purchasing clerk, Starship Tapes & Records, WIPO Case No. D2017-2533, 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).

In fact, the disputed domain name imitates the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR by the mere deletion of the letter “e”. However, this deleted letter does not modify the overall impression of the disputed domain name which is at least highly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Indeed, this modification does not change the same phonetical impression when pronounced. Also, visually, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark since the disputed domain name is identical with eight out of nine letters of the Complainant’s trademark and its order (Carrefour v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0152812191 / Milen Radumilo, Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-0670).

This practice is commonly referred to as “typosquatting” and creates virtually identical and/or confusingly similar marks to the Complainant’s trademark (Mapfre S.A. y Fundación Mapfre v. Josep Sitjar, WIPO Case No. D2011-0692, Compagnie Gervais Danone of Paris v. Jose Gregorio Hernandez Quintero, WIPO Case No. D2009-1050).

The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.com” is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement (see section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The mere adjunction of a gTLD such as “.com” is irrelevant as it is well established that the gTLD is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity (L’Oréal v. Tina Smith, WIPO Case No. D2013-0820, Titoni AG v. Runxin Wang, WIPO Case No. D2008-0820, and Alstom v. Itete Peru S.A., WIPO Case No. D2009-0877).

Accordingly, by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. Thus, it is likely that the disputed domain name could mislead Internet users into thinking that it is, in some way, associated with CARREFOUR.

The Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has it been authorized by the Complainant to use and register its trademark, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said trademark.

The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or the name “carrefour”, in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. Thus, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii); Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2)).

The disputed domain name redirects towards several random websites which at times feature the Complainant’s official website at “www.carrefour.fr”, parking pages displaying sponsored links directly related to the Complainant (such as “Carrefour Dubai” or “Carrefour Hypermarket”) and to websites indicating that the disputed domain name is offered for sale.

Moreover, the Respondent, by registering the disputed domain name that differs from the famous mark CARREFOUR by only one letter, seeks to take advantage of users, as “typographical” errors are engaging in “typosquatting”. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar by definition because the sole attraction of the disputed domain name is its confusing similarity to the famous mark CARREFOUR.

Further, the disputed domain name <carrfour.com> is virtually identical to the Complainant’s domain name <carrefour.com>. As a result, a predictable and easily made typing error could result in an Internet user being diverted from the Complainant’s site to that of the Respondent. Previous UDRP panels have also found that typosquatting does not constitute a legitimate use of a trademark (FragranceX.com, Inc.v. Argosweb Corp a/k/a Oleg Techino, WIPO Case No. D2010-1237, in this name and under various aliases).

The Complaint states that an email server has been configured on the disputed domain name and thus, there might be a risk that the Respondent has, or is intending to, engage in a phishing scheme (Annex 1 to the Complaint). This constitutes further evidence that the disputed domain name is not being used in any type of legitimate business or services.

The use of an email address with a domain name which is highly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR, coupled with a redirection towards the Complainant’s official website, presents a significant risk where the Respondent could aim at stealing valuable information such as credit cards from the Complainant’s clients or employees. Such risk has been recognised by a prior UDRP panel (Accor SA v. Domain Admin, C/O ID#10760, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / Yogesh Bhardwaj, WIPO Case No. D2017-1225).

Also, the disputed domain name redirects to parking pages displaying commercial links – from which the Respondent or a third party is obtaining financial gain (Annex 1 to the Complaint). UDRP panels have held that the use of domain names to divert Internet users and to direct them to a parking page generating revenues through click to the respondent evidences bad faith as the respondent is taking undue advantage of the complainant’s trademarks to generate profits. The use of a well-known trademark to attract Internet users to such websites for commercial gain constitutes bad faith pursuant to the Policy (F Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Anna Valdieri, WIPO Case No. D2007-0956, L’Oréal SA v. LV Kefeng, WIPO Case No. D2009-1231, and Alstom v.FM Laughna, WIPO Case No. D2007-1736).

Furthermore, the fact that the disputed domain name is offered for sale on the webpages to which it redirects, constitutes evidence of bad faith. Indeed, it is well established that the offer to sell a domain name in excess of the out of pocket expenses of the respondent in registering the domain name can be compelling evidence of bad faith registration and use (Imara Trade Marks BVI Limited v. Direct Privacy ID 1078D, Domain Name Proxy Service, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2012-2183, Massachusetts Medical Society v. Michael Karle, WIPO Case No. D2000-0282, World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Michael Bosman, WIPO Case No. D1999-0001).

Finally, given the Complainant’s goodwill and renown worldwide, and the nature of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, it is not possible to conceive a plausible circumstance in which the Respondent could legitimately use the disputed domain name, as it would invariably result in misleading diversion and taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel considers that all the information provided by the Complainant clearly attests that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR. Further, the disputed domain name reproduces exactly and identically the well-known trademark CARREFOUR except only for the deletion of the letter “e” which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.

Further, the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contentions that the adjunction of a gTLD such as “.com” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark as it is a standard registration requirement.

Therefore, this requirement has been satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint, and the record is void of any possible rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name. Neither has the Respondent refuted the allegations made by the Complainant. Therefore, having been duly notified of the Complaint, the Panel considers the silence of the Respondent as a tacit acceptance of the claims made by the Complainant.

Moreover, the Panel has not found the occurrence of any of the circumstances mentioned by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Quite the contrary, the Complainant has effectively demonstrated the following: to be the owner of registered trademarks and associated domain names, including the mark CARREFOUR, which are prior to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, and that it has not licensed the use or exploitation of its CARREFOUR trademark to the Respondent.

Therefore, considering the unrebutted prima facie case made out by the Complainant, the Panel considers that the Complainant has also fulfilled the second element required by the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

This third element requires the Complainant to prove that the disputed domain name (1) was registered in bad faith and (2) is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that evidence registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR except for one letter. However, the missing letter “e” does not modify the overall impression of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. More so, said modification does not change the same phonetical impression when pronounced: “carrfour” and “carrefour”.

The Panel finds the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainant’s mark CARREFOUR and its rights therein at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. These findings are based on: (i) the Complainant’s trademark having a strong reputation and being widely known internationally; (ii) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; (iii) the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page, displaying commercial links from which the Respondent or a third party is obtaining financial gain; (iv) the links at the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, redirect towards several random websites; (v) the Respondent is taking undue advantage of the Complainant’s trademark to generate profits; (vi) the fact that the disputed domain name is offered for sale; and (vii) the above finding of the Respondent having no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Finally, given the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark and in light of the use given to the disputed domain name, the Panel agrees that the Respondent’s motive to register the disputed domain name can only have been to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Consequently, for all these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the third element required of 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 <carrfour.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Rodrigo Velasco Santelices
Sole Panelist
Date: October 9, 2019