Financiere OUI CARE v Yiwei Ren

WIPO Case No. D2025-2369

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

FINANCIERE OUI CARE v. YIWEI REN

Case No. D2025-2369

1. The Parties

Complainant is FINANCIERE OUI CARE, France, represented by CASALONGA, France.

Respondent is YIWEI REN, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ouicare.org> (the “Domain name”) is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 16, 2025. On June 17, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 17, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email to Complainant on June 18, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 19, 2025.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 23, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 13, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 22, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on July 30, 2025. 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

According to the Complaint:

“The Complainant is part of the OUI CARE GROUP which specializes in the field of personal services. than ten different brands, over 18,000 employees, more than 110,000 customers and around 600 agencies in France, Spain, Mexico, and Portugal. […] The OUI CARE GROUP brings together 15 home services brands designed to meet the full range of its clients’ needs.”

Complainant’s personal services include: childcare, elderly and disability assistance, housekeeping and ironing, gardening, tutoring, home improvement, janitorial services, and delivery of household products.

Complainant’s annual turnover in 2022 was EUR 400 million, and in 2023 it was EUR 450 million.

Complainant has operated a commercial website at the domain name <ouicare.com> since December 24, 2011. Complainant owns other domain names, including <oui.care>. Complainant has a social media presence, with more than 13,000 followers on LinkedIn. Complainant and its OUI CARE business is also featured in a Wikipedia page.

Complainant is the registered owner of the semi-figurative mark OUI CARE, International Reg. No. 1388569 filed and registered on November 10, 2017 and designating 15 jurisdictions in addition to France.

The Domain Name was registered on January 14, 2025. The Domain Name resolves to a landing page set up by the Registrar, which indicates that the Domain Name is available for purchase for USD 1,450.

On May 9, 2025, Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to Respondent via the contact form available on
the Registrar’s website, alleging trademark infringement and bad faith registration. In this communication,
Complainant requested the immediate and free transfer of the Domain Name. According to Complainant,
Respondent never replied to this letter.

Annexed to the Complaint are three prior UDRP decisions in which this Respondent was found to have registered and used the subject domain names in bad faith.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the

Domain Name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the
Domain Name:

(i)        the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which

Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii)      the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the trademark OUI CARE through registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is identical to that mark.

Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the
Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:

(i)        before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to

use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services; or

(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii)      you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without

intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at

issue.

The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in connection with the Domain use in three prior UDRP cases.

Name. Respondent has not come forward, either in this proceeding or in response to the cease-and-desist
letter, to deny any of Complainant’s allegations or dispute any of Complainant’s evidence. Nor has
Respondent come forward to articulate some purportedly legitimate reason for registering the Domain Name.

On this undisputed record, the Panel concludes that Respondent more likely than not was aware of Complainant’s OUI CARE mark when registering the Domain Name, and that Respondent’s motivation for doing so was to make a profit off of Complainant’s trademark by selling the Domain Name at a substantial markup (as was found to have occurred in prior UDRP cases).

Such conduct cannot invest Respondent with rights or legitimate interests vis-à-vis the Domain Name.

Moreover, the Panel notes the identical composition of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trademark (as well as near identity to the Complainant’s primary domain name) carries a high risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

page 4

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”:

(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily

for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant
who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable
consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or

(ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or

service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has
engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)      that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business

of a competitor; or

(iv)      that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial

gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion
with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website
or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.

The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith under the Policy. The Panel incorporates its discussion above in the “Rights or Legitimate Interests” section. On this record, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent targeted Complainant’s trademark when registering the Domain Name and has used the Domain Name for illegitimate commercial gain by seeking to sell it at a profit. This constitutes bad faith registration and use within the meaning of the above-quoted Policy

paragraph 4(b)(i).

The Panel also finds Respondent in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(ii) by engaging in a pattern (three prior

UDRP cases) of preclusive domain name registrations.

Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

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 Domain Name <ouicare.org> be transferred to Complainant.

/Robert A. Badgley/
Robert A. Badgley
Sole Panelist
Date: August 13, 2025