Carrefour SA v jumex green

WIPO Case No. D2025-2933

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Carrefour SA v. jumex green

Case No. D2025-2933

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is jumex green, United States of America (“USA”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <carrefourpass-es.info> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a

PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 23, 2025. On July 23, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 25, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 25, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint.

The Center verified that the 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
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 28, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was August 17, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 18, 2025.

The Center appointed Zineb Naciri Bennani as the sole panelist in this matter on August 21, 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.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a French company created in 1968, specialized in retail with hypermarkets located
worldwide with 1.3 million daily unique visitors in its stores. The Complainant’s turnaround was 76 billion

EUR in 2018 and the company is listed on the index of the Paris Stock Exchange (CAC 40).

The Complainant offers additional services such as travel, banking, insurance, and ticketing services.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark rights including the following:

- French trademark CARREFOUR PASS No. 99780481, registered on August 27, 1999 for goods in class 36

- International trademark CARREFOUR PASS No. 719166, registered on August 18, 1999 for goods in class

36

- European Union trademark CARREFOUR No. 008779498, registered on July 13, 2010 for goods in class

35

- USA trademark CARREFOUR No. 6763415, registered on June 21, 2022 for goods in class 35.

The Complainant also owns numerous domain names such as:

- <carrefour.com> registered on October 25, 1995;
- <carrefour.fr> registered on June 23, 2005;
- <carrefourpass.com> registered on May 31, 2010;

- <carrefourpass.net> registered on October 16, 2013.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 30, 2025 and resolves to an inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that it has demonstrated rights in the terms CARREFOUR and the disputed domain name.

The Complainant evidenced its notoriety on the Internet social networks.

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name creates a confusing similarity with its trademark as it includes the trademarks CARREFOUR and CARREFOURPASS with the addition of the term ”es”, which is the ISO country code for Spain, and a hyphen.

According to the Complainant this addition is not sufficient to avoid misleading Internet users and to avoid creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as it has never been authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark in any manner.

page 3

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name as an individual, business, or other organization and that it has not used or made preparations to use the disputed domain name in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad
faith knowing that the Complainant enjoys a solid notoriety worldwide making it very likely that the
Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered several years after the registration of the Complainant’s trademark making it nearly impossible that the similarity with the trademark is a coincidence.

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith, knowing that, since the registration, the disputed domain name has been inactive on the web, resolving to an error page.

The Complainant considers that by reproducing the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name, the Respondent strengthens the impression that he or she is affiliated with the Complainant which can make Internet users wrongly believe that they are visiting an official website of the Complainant, or affiliated with

the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Panel should decide a complaint based on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy and Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must establish each of the following:

(i) that the disputed domain name registered to the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a

trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the disputed 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.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms here, “es”, 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 for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

page 4

Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “(gTLD”) “.info” is not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity either. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.2.

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.

Although 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 difficult 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). 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 available 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 the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

In the present case, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name years after the Complainant began using the trademark and also after the Complainant had registered its now well-known trademark.

The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and hasnot received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name or in any other manner.

It is as well established that the disputed domain name is not derived from the Respondent's name.

Furthermore, the disputed domain name directs to an inactive website, which does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel also finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

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.

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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant is one of the leading companies in its field with stores worldwide, an active presence on the Internet and about 76 billion EUR in sales e.g., in the year 2018.

page 5

The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page and does not carry a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Moreover the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s well-known trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

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 <carrefourpass-es.info> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Zineb Naciri Bennani/
Zineb Naciri Bennani
Sole Panelist
Date: August 28, 2025