Carrefour SA v Leomar Brambilla and Lincoln De Sosua Ribeiro - WIPO Case No. D2023-0360

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Carrefour SA v. Leomar Brambilla and Lincoln De Sosua Ribeiro

Case No. D2023-0360

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France.

The Respondent is Leomar Brambilla, Brazil, and Lincoln De Sosua Ribeiro, Brazil.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <carrefourblacksolucoes.com> and <carrefoursolucoesblack.com>

(the “Domain Names”) are registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 26, 2023.

On January 26, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On January 26, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent (Contact Privacy Inc.) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 31, 2023, 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 February 1, 2023.

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 paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 12, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 13, 2023.

The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on March 22, 2023. 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a leading global retailer offering supermarkets and hypermarkets under the trade mark

CARREFOUR (the “CARREFOUR Mark”) around the world. The Complainant operates more than 12,000

stores in over 30 countries, employs over 384,000 people and has 1.3 million daily unique visitors in its
stores.

The Complainant is the owner of multiple trade mark registrations for the CARREFOUR Mark in various jurisdictions around the world, including International trade mark registrations 351147 and 353849, registered in 1968 and 1969 respectively, for goods and services in classes 1 to 42, designating countries including Belgium, Spain and Italy.

The Domain Names were registered on January 6, and January 10, 2023. The Domain Names resolve to

websites (the “Respondent’s Websites”) apparently operated by third parties, that contain technical

information unrelated to any apparent meaning of the Domain Names. For example one of the

Respondent’s Websites is a default page used to test…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Carrefour SA v Leomar Brambilla and Lincoln De Sosua Ribeiro

Details

AGLC: Carrefour SA v Leomar Brambilla and Lincoln De Sosua Ribeiro WIPO Case No. D2023-0360
Case: WIPO Case No. D2023-0360
Decision Date: 03-04-2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Carrefour SA, a leading global retailer, filed a complaint against Leomar Brambilla and Lincoln De Sosua Ribeiro for the domain names <carrefourblacksolucoes.com> and <carrefoursolucoesblack.com> under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The complainant, Carrefour SA, is the owner of multiple trademark registrations for the CARREFOUR Mark, which operates over 12,000 stores in more than 30 countries. The domain names in question were registered on January 6 and January 10, 2023, and resolve to websites that contain technical information unrelated to any apparent meaning of the domain names.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the domain names were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark, whether the respondent had rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names, and whether the domain names had been registered and were being used in bad faith. The court found that the domain names were confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark, that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names, and that the domain names had been registered and were being used in bad faith.

The court's reasoning was based on the fact that the complainant's CARREFOUR Mark is extraordinarily well known globally, and the respondent had provided no explanation as to why an entity would register two domain names that wholly incorporate the CARREFOUR Mark and two dictionary words unless there was an awareness of and an intention to create a likelihood of confusion with the complainant and its CARREFOUR Mark. The court found that the respondent's conduct in registering the domain names when it was aware of the complainant's rights and lacked rights or legitimate interests of its own amounted to registration in bad faith. The court also found that the use of the domain names for the respondent's websites, as described above, was in bad faith.

The final orders of the court were that the domain names <carrefourblacksolucoes.com> and <carrefoursolucoesblack.com> be transferred to the complainant, Carrefour SA. The decision was made on April 3, 2023, by the sole panelist, Nicholas Smith.

Orders