Carrefour Sa v sezer karabulut, sezer limited

WIPO Case No. D2025-1177

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Carrefour SA v. sezer karabulut, sezer limited

Case No. D2025-1177

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is sezer karabulut, sezer limited, Türkiye.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <carreforsa.shop> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 21, 2025.
On March 21, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On March 25, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o
Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the
Complainant on March 25, 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 25, 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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 31, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was April 20, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 6, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Simone Huser as the sole panelist in this matter on May 12, 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 was founded in 1968 and is a major retail chain headquartered in France, which operates more than 12,000 stores in more than 30 countries.

The Complainant holds several domain names containing the term “carrefour”, among them <carrefour.com> and <carrefour.fr>.

The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations in several jurisdictions, including:

- CARREFOUR, European Union Trademark registration No. 008779498, registered on July 13, 2010, in international class 35;

- CARREFOUR, International Trademark registration No. 563304, registered on November 6, 1990, in international classes 1-42;

- CARREFOUR, French Trademark registration No. 1565338, registered on May 25, 1990, in

international classes 1-34;

- CARREFOUR, United States Trademark registration No. 6763415, registered on June 21, 2022, in

international class 35.

Because the Respondent did not file a response, not much is known about the Respondent.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 3, 2025.

According to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a web server's default page stating that there is no website connected to this address.

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 as follows:

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CARREFOUR trademark in which the Complainant has rights, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and only differs by the absence of the letter “u” and the addition of the acronym “sa”, which stands for “Société Anonyme” in French translated to “Public Limited Company” in English.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the trademark CARREFOUR, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use, or demonstrable preparation to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

page 3

The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith because it is obvious that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR at the time it registered the disputed domain name.

The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, as it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark the

complainant has rights;

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

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and in 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 omission of the letter “u” in the disputed domain name is considered an intentional misspelling of the
Complainant’s mark and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.

Although the addition of other terms, here “sa”, 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.

The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.shop” in the disputed domain name is a standard registration requirement and as such may be disregarded under the confusing similarity test under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

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.

page 4

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.

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.

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 or reputation of the Complainant’s 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 <carreforsa.shop> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Simone Huser/
Simone Huser
Sole Panelist
Date: May 16, 2025