Carrefour SA v Name Redacted

WIPO Case No. D2025-0962

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Carrefour SA v. Name Redacted

Case No. D2025-0962

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Name Redacted.[1]

[1] The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the Domain Name. In light of the potential identity

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <moncompte-carrefours.net> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with

Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 10, 2025. On March 10, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 10, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 12, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 12, 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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules,
paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 6, 2025. The Center received a communication from an

apparent third party on March 21, 2025, and commenced the panel appointment process on April 15, 2025.

The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on April 25, 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

The Complainant is a worldwide leading retailer, and a pioneer of the concept of hypermarkets back in 1968. With a revenue of EUR 83 billion in 2022, the Complainant is listed on the index of the Paris Stock Exchange (CAC 40). The Complainant operates more than 12,000 stores in more than 30 countries worldwide. It has

more than 384,000 employees worldwide and 1.3 million daily visitors in its stores.

The Complainant is the proprietor of numerous trademarks worldwide for CARREFOUR (the “Mark”)
including International trademark number 351147 registered on October 2, 1968, France trademark number
1487274 registered on February 24, 1989, and European Union trademark number 005178371 registered on
August 30, 2007.

The Complainant also owns many domain names comprising its trademarks, including <carrefour.com> registered in 1995.

The Domain Name was registered on February 7, 2025. It does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove 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 the Domain Name; and

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

A. Identity of the Respondent

On the balance of probabilities, the Panel is satisfied on the basis of the email received by the Center dated
March 21, 2025, that the Respondent has used the name of a third party when registering the Domain
Name.

page 3

B. 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.

Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain “.net”, the Domain Name comprises the entirety of the Complainant’s and a hyphen, and the addition of the letter “s”. In the Panel’s view, these additions do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and the first element of the Policy has been established.

C. 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. Accordingly, 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.

The Domain Name is not being used for an active website. In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, the Panel cannot conceive any plausible actual or contemplated use of the Domain Name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, or any possible justification for the Respondent having registered the Domain Name.

Having reviewed the available evidence, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the 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 Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or

otherwise.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In light of the nature of the Domain Name, including the entirety of the Mark, the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent had the Complainant and its rights in the Mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name, and that it did so with the intention of using the Domain Name to deceive Internet users into believing that it was registered by or associated with the Complainant for legitimate purposes related to the Complainant’s activities.

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.

page 4

Despite the fact that there appears to be no active use of the Domain Name, section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 notes that, from the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. It depends on the facts of the case, including “(i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put”.

In this case, the Complainant’s mark is distinctive; the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint; the Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the Domain Name; and, as indicated above, the Panel cannot conceive any plausible actual or contemplated use of the Domain Name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate

In addition, the Panel considers that the inclusion of the words “mon compte” (meaning my account in the a website phishing for personal information of the customers of the Complainant.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 Domain Name <moncompte-carrefours.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Ian Lowe/
Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: May 6, 2025

theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision
an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the Domain Name, which includes the name of the 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.