{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-008087",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "carrafour.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Caroline Garcia-Moreau (Carrefour)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Tomasz Kurlenko"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is Carrefour, a company registered under the law of France. It is one of the largest companies recognised worldwide, operating in over 30 countries, offering to the market a wide range of services related to retail, but also in banking and insurance. Complainant operates in more than 12.000 stores, employs over 380.000 people and on daily basis provides services for 1.3 million people. Compliant is listed in the Paris Stock Exchange, and at the end of 2018, Complainant achieved a turnaround at the rate of 76 billion EURO.\r\nThe Respondent – Mr. Tomasz Kurlenko – is a physical person, domiciled in Poland in Krzepice (42-160) ul. Słoneczna 11. In the herein case it was not established whether If the Respondent operates as an entrepreneur or conducts any kind of business activity in other forms. The disputed domain <carrafour.eu> was registered on 5 October 2020. Under the disputed domain there are no particular information indicating on the Respondent nor his business activity. It is a dynamically generated website that includes third-party advertising.\r\nOn 14 December 2020 the Complainant filed its Complaint, and the receipt of the Complaint was acknowledged by the ADR on 15 December 2020. ADR issued a request for EURid verification on 15 December 2020, due to several issues that needed to be verified: \r\nthat the specified domain name(s) is \/ are registered with the above mentioned Registrar.\r\nthat the Respondent is the current registrant of the domain name(s).\r\nfull contact details (i.e., postal addresses, telephone number(s), facsimile number(s), e-mail address(es) that are available in your WHOIS database for the domain name registrant, technical contact, administrative contact and billing contact, for the above domain name(s).\r\nthat the domain name(s) will remain locked during the pending ADR Proceeding;\r\nApart from that, Complainant was requested to indicate the specific language of the registration agreement as used by the registrant for each domain name.\r\nOn 17 December 2020 Complainant send to the ADR a communication in which it provided all of the requested information, that allowed ADR to commence the proceedings in the case ta hand on 22 December 2020. As for the language of the proceedings, English language was selected.\r\nThe Respondent did not respond to the communication, and failed to comply with the deadline indicated in the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of ADR. \r\nOn 3 march 2021 the Panelist, having filed the necessary Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence had been appointed.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "In accordance to the material collected in the case at hand, it was proven without a doubt that the Complainant had earlier rights to the name Carrefour than the date of the registration of the disputed domain. Moreover, based on the Complainant’s evidence and historical description, it should be concluded that the Complainant’s trademark and corresponding tradename are well-known.  \r\nThe Respondent (residing in Poland) registered and used the disputed name in the contested domain ‘carrafour.eu’, despite undeniable awareness of the popularity and reputation of the highly similar designation carrefour, constituting Compliant legal name, his trademarks and domain name. This is not altered by the fact that the contested designation is not identical to the ‘carrefour’ designation. In the view of the herein Panel, the similarity of the compared designation is very high, which results in the risk of confusion of the users of the Internet. Moreover, no particular activity on preparation or actual using the name ‘carrafour’ in the market by the Respondent were established in the herein case, justifying the registration of that name.\r\nIn accordance to that, the Panel finds that the Respondent did not have any kind of rights to the name and no particular interest in registering such name that could be derived from any rights. \r\nIn the view of the gathered evidences in the case at hand, the disputed domain was used by the Respondent primarily in order to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s earlier marks, profiting from their (intended or not) entrance to the website under the disputed domain. Website under the domain ‘carrafour.eu’ is a dynamically generated website that includes third-party advertising, which – in relation to the high similarity to the well renown designation carrefour – is to be considered as an infringement of Complainant’s rights, and a criminal offence, pursued by the provision of Polish law.  \r\nIn accordance to the provision of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration (hereinafter referred to as: Regulation), a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, and where it: \r\n(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or\r\n(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\nMoreover, in accordance to the provisions of Article 21(2) of the Regulation, a legitimate interest may be demonstrated where:\r\n(a) prior to any notice of an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure, the holder of a domain name has used the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with the offering of goods or services or has made demonstrable preparation to do so;\r\n(b) the holder of a domain name, being an undertaking, organisation or natural person, has been commonly known by the domain name, even in the absence of a right recognised or established by national and\/or Community law;\r\n(c) the holder of a domain name is making a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of a name on which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law.\r\nIn the case at hand, regardless of the illegal nature of the activity of the Respondent, none of the abovementioned circumstances, indicating on the justified interest in registering and using the disputed domain name, were established. Furthermore, due to the fact that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the well-known Complainant designation. \r\nIn accordance to the provision of Article 21 (30 of the Regulation, registering or using the designation in the bad faith refers to the situations, where: \r\n(a) circumstances indicate that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder of a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law or to a public body; or\r\n(b) the domain name has been registered in order to prevent the holder of such a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, or a public body, from reflecting this name in a corresponding domain name, provided that:\r\n(i) a pattern of such conduct by the registrant can be demonstrated; or\r\n(ii) the domain name has not been used in a relevant way for at least two years from the date of registration; or\r\n(iii) in circumstances where, at the time the ADR procedure was initiated, the holder of a domain name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law or the holder of a domain name of a public body has declared his\/its intention to use the domain name in a relevant way but fails to do so within six months of the day on which the ADR procedure was initiated;\r\n(c) the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the professional activities of a competitor; or \r\n(d) the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to the holder of a domain name website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law or a name of a public body, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the holder of a domain name; or\r\n(e) the domain name registered is a personal name for which no demonstrable link exists between the domain name holder and the domain name registered.\r\nIn accordance to the above it has to be noted, that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. Due to the evidences gathered in the proceedings, the domain “carrafour.eu’ served primarily as a parking page of pay-per-click commercial links. Confusingly similar name of the disputed domain name to the renown and well-known designations of the Complainant was intended to profit from the impression that there is a relation between the services available through the website and the Complainant. Confusion may arise also as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the holder of a disputed domain name. \r\nIn the opinion of the herein Panel the disputed domain was intended to be used in such manner from the moment of its registration.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name CARRAFOUR.EU be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-04-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: [carrafour.eu]\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: [France], country of the Respondent: [Poland]\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: [5 October 2020]\r\nIV.    Rights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision: company name, earlier identical domain name, rights to earlier European trademark.\r\nV.    Response submitted: [No]\r\nVI.   Domain name is confusingly similar to the protected rights of the Complainant.\r\nVII.  Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. [No]\r\n        2. Why: --- \r\na) No registration of any kind related to the domain name under dispute.\r\nb) Not commonly known by the domain name.\r\nc) The holder of a domain name is not making a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name.\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. [Yes]\r\n        2. Why:\r\na) the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of improper gains, disrupting the professional activities of the Compliant, in an attempt to impersonate the Compliant, offering on the market certain services with no intention of their provision.\r\nb) the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to the holder of a domain name website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognized or established by national and Community law, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the holder of a domain name.\r\nc) the domain name is highly similar to the name of a Complainants’ company, and the Panel has not been proved to have any connection between the Respondent and the registered disputed domain name. Nor is any such connection apparent;\r\nIX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None\r\nX. Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}