Sodexo v Name Redacted

WIPO Case No. D2023-1553

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

SODEXO v. Name Redacted

Case No. D2023-1553

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SODEXO, France, represented by Areopage, France.

The Respondent is Name Redacted1.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sodexoportal.org> is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed regarding the disputed domain name, and another domain name, with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 11, 2023. On April 11, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 17, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrants and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 7151571251) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 24, 2023, providing the registrants and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint removing one of the domain names from the administrative proceeding on April 26, 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

1 The Respondent appears to have used the name of a Complainant’s employee when registering the disputed domain name. In light of

the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST‑12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788

page 2

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 May 1, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 21, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 22, 2023.

The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on June 6, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, which was founded in 1966, is one of the largest companies in the world specializing in food services and facilities management. It has some 422,000 employees and serves some 100 million consumers daily in over 50 countries. In 2022, its consolidated revenues were in the region of EUR 21.1 billion.

Since 2008, the Complainant has traded under the mark SODEXO; previously, it used the mark SODEXHO. registered on October 23, 2014, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45.

The Complainant operates a website at “

The disputed domain name was registered on February 17, 2023. The disputed domain name is not in use, however the Complainant states that it has recently faced several attacks, and fears a possible fraudulent use of the disputed domain, specifically taking into account that the Respondent impersonated the current Complainant’s employee in an attempt to make the registration of the disputed Domain name appear legitimate.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

According to the Complainant, each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case.

First, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark registrations of the Complainant.

Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Third, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements which a complainant must satisfy in order to succeed. The
Complainant must satisfy that:

(i)        the 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 such domain name; and

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1

The Panel finds the entirety of the mark SODEXO is recognizable within the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the
Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

While the addition of other terms like “portal” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark SODEXO for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that:

- before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made
demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the

page 4

disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Paragraph 4(c)(i)

of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2.

- the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by
the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3.

- the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name,
without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or
service mark at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4.

- the record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in
the disputed domain name.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

The Panel is of the view based on the evidence introduce by the Complainant that in this case, that the disputed domain name registered to impersonate the Complainant.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that:

-	The disputed domain name is not in use;
-	However the Complainant states that it has recently faced several attacks, and fears a possible fraudulent use of the disputed domain name “notably to perpetrate email scam sent to its clients requesting payment of false invoices on fake Sodexo bank accounts or to order products to
Complainant’s clients for considerable amounts by impersonating Complainant’s employees”.
-	The Respondent attempted to impersonate a real SODEXO employee in an attempt to make the registration of the disputed Domain name appear legitimate by using his name in the registration process.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding.

The Panel notes the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name using without authorization the name of an employee of the Complainant is evidence of bad faith under the Policy.

page 5

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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 <sodexoportal.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Pablo A. Palazzi/
Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: June 24, 2023