WIPO Administrative Panel orders transfer of leclerc-precommande-gta6.com, finds bad faith despite domain being inactive

The complainant is the French retail chain Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc – A.C.D. Lec, represented by MIIP MADE IN IP; the respondents are Suzette Beckford Phillip and Leviosa Lite Inc, United States. The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. The case was heard by sole panelist Eric Macramalla, with the decision dated 2026 10 16.

The complaint was filed on 2026 8 25; on 8 26 the registrar's verification disclosed registrant information inconsistent with that listed in the complaint, the registration information having been provided by the privacy service Withheld for Privacy ehf, and the complainant submitted an amended complaint on 8 27. The proceedings were commenced on 9 2, with a response deadline of 9 22; the respondents did not submit a response, the Center notified their default on 9 23, and the panelist was appointed on 10 1.

The complainant is a well-known French supermarket chain with approximately 750 stores in France and more than 14 employees, and holds several trademarks containing LECLERC, including European Union trademark No. 2700656 (registered on 2004 2 26, covering classes 1 to 45), French trademark No. 1307790 (registered on 1985 5 2), and international registration No. 511972 (registered on 1987 1 27).

The disputed domain name was registered on 2026 6 29 and previously pointed to a website using the LECLERC trademark that allowed users to pre-order the video game Grand Theft Auto 6—a pre-order service also offered on the complainant's official website. The domain name is currently inactive.

On the first element, the Panel found that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the LECLERC trademark and is clearly recognizable, and that the addition of "precommande-gta6" does not affect the finding of confusing similarity.

On the second element, the Panel applied the burden-shifting rule: the complainant had made a prima facie showing that the respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, shifting the burden to the respondents to rebut, but they defaulted and submitted no evidence. The complainant never authorized the respondents to use its trademark; there is no evidence that the respondents are known by the disputed domain name, nor any bona fide offering of goods or services or fair use. The reputation of the complainant's trademark, the domain name's full incorporation of that trademark, and the respondents' actual impersonation of the complainant together support this finding.

On the third element, the Panel found that the respondents registered and used the disputed domain name for financial gain, creating an overall impression that they were authorized by or associated with the complainant, constituting the circumstance under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and that their conduct also bore the hallmarks of passing off. As to the domain name no longer being used, the Panel noted that mere non-use does not by itself preclude a finding of bad faith (the "passive holding" rule), and that, considering the reputation and distinctiveness of the trademark, the current inactive status does not affect the finding of bad faith.

Pursuant to paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel ordered the transfer of the disputed domain name leclerc-precommande-gta6.com to the complainant. —————————————————————————————————————————————————— Source: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, Case No. D2026-3790, Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc – A.C.D. Lec v. Suzette Beckford Phillip, Leviosa Lite Inc, sole panelist Eric Macramalla, 2026 10 16.

Note: This article is compiled from public information and is for informational reference only; it does not constitute legal or other professional advice. For specific conclusions, please refer to official publications and the actual circumstances of each case.