Carrefourtw.xyz

The timeline behind carrefourtw.xyz

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Carrefour SA v. Maria Amparo Case No. D2025-2072 1. The Parties The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France. The Respondent is Maria Amparo, Ecuador. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <carrefourtw.xyz> is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 26, 2025. On May 26, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 26, 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 (WhoisSecure) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 27, 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 May 27, 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 June 3, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 23, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 25, 2025. The Center appointed Benoit Van Asbroeck as the sole panelist in this matter on June 30, 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 mainly active in the retail sector. It was founded in 1959 and has more than 14,000 retail locations in more than 40 countries worldwide. The Complainant is the owner of registered trademarks in the mark CARREFOUR, amongst which: International Trademark No. 351147 for CARREFOUR, registered on October 2, 1968, in International Classes 1 to 34, designating Benelux Office for Intellectual Property, Spain, Italy, and Monaco; International Trademark No. 353849 for CARREFOUR, registered on February 28, 1969, in International Classes 35 to 42, designating Estonia, Lithuania, Benelux Office for Intellectual Property, Czech Republic, Spain, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Latvia, Morocco, Monaco, Montenegro, Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia, and San Marino; and European Union Trademark No. 005178371 for CARREFOUR, registered on August 30, 2007, in International Classes 9, 35, and 38. In addition, the Complainant owns domain names containing the CARREFOUR trademark, amongst which <carrefour.com>, <carrefour.fr>, and <carrefour.tw>. The disputed domain name was registered on April 14, 2025, well after the Complainant secured rights in the mark CARREFOUR. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name has been reported as a deceptive site, with the following warning message: “Firefox blocked this page because it may trick you into doing something dangerous like installing software or revealing personal information like passwords or credit cards”. The disputed domain name is currently inactive. 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. With respect to the first element, the Complainant contends that it has rights in the mark CARREFOUR and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to this mark. According to the Complainant, the mark CARREFOUR is well known and the disputed domain name reproduces this in its entirety. The addition of “tw” to the trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. As the Complainant points out, the addition of a generic term or letters, such as “tw”, to a trademark in a domain name does nothing to diminish the likelihood of confusion arising from that domain name. Finally, according to the Complainant, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.xyz” is not significant in determining whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant. Regarding the second element, the Complainant claims that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Firstly, the Complainant performed searches and found no CARREFOUR or CARREFOURTW trademark owned by the Respondent. Secondly, the Complainant contends that they have not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its CARREFOUR trademark in any manner. Thirdly, the Complainant puts forth that the Respondent has not, before the original filing of the Complaint, used or made preparations to use the disputed domain name in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services. In fact, as the Complainant points out, the disputed domain has been reported as resolving to a deceptive website. In addition, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name’s specific composition carries a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant which cannot constitute fair use as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by page 3 the Complainant. Also, in light on the worldwide renown of the Complainant’s trademarks, the Complainant sees no plausible use of the disputed domain name that would be legitimate fair and non-commercial. Finally, the Complainant emphasized that since the adoption and extensive use of its CARREFOUR trademarks predates by far the registration of the disputed domain name, the burden is on the Respondent to establish their rights or legitimate interests. As to bad faith registration, the Complainant claims that given the international well-known status of its CARREFOUR trademark, it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s rights. The Complainant also points out that Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. Furthermore, the Complainant notes that the specific nature of the disputed domain name (trademark and country code) carries a high risk of implied affiliation that cannot constitute fair use and suggests bad faith. Moreover, the Complainant relies on the fact that its CARREFOUR trademark registrations significantly predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Complainant states, a quick trademark search or search engine query, if really necessary, would have revealed to the Respondent the existence of the Complainant and its trademarks. With respect to bad faith use, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name was reported by Google Safe Browsing as resolving to a website containing potentially harmful material or used for fraudulent purposes (such as phishing). Finally, the Complainant notes that considering the long-lasting international relationship of the Complainant and its trademarks, the Complainant cannot think of any future use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in good faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 the CARREFOUR trademark 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 “tw”, 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. Finally, as for the applicable gTLD, i.e., the suffix “.xyz”, the Panel holds that this can be disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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. The Panel finds that the Respondent does not use, or has not made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of services and neither makes a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The overall facts and circumstances of the case do not show a bona fide offering of services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use either. The disputed domain name appears to have previously been used for a deceptive website and is now inactive. This kind of use of the disputed domain name neither represents a bona fide offering nor does it supports rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In addition, there is a risk of implied affiliation here since the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark. Furthermore, there is no evidence on file that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or owns any registered trademarks in the disputed domain name or CARREFOUR. Finally, the Complainant confirmed that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has the Complainant licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks. The Panel has taken note of the Complainant’s confirmation in this regard and has not seen any evidence that would suggest the contrary. In the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use its trademarks, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875; and LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, Above.com Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master, WIPO Case No. D2010-0138). 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. The fact that the disputed domain name is currently not used does 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 CARREFOUR trademark, and the page 5 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. Moreover, 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. The following other circumstances further support a finding of bad faith. As pointed out by the Complainant, prior panels have previously recognized that the CARREFOUR trademark is well-known (see, for example: Carrefour SA v. jean noel ballart, WIPO Case No. D2023-2225; Carrefour SA v. Sui Yuan, Bao Bao Liu, WIPO Case No. D2023-3003; Carrefour SA v. hanib bas, WIPO Case No. D2020-1798; Carrefour SA. v. Reliant-web Domain Admin / Jean Marie Grolleau / Joanne Elvert, WIPO Case No. D2021-2389; Carrefour v. Andre Machado, WIPO Case No. DIO2020-0004; and Carrefour SA v. Youssefgcxh Elachourix, WIPO Case No. D2024-0840). The mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith, as consistently confirmed by prior Panels (see WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 3.1.4). Moreover, the Panel believes that the Respondent knew or, at least, should have known at the time of registration that the disputed domain name included the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark. The Complainant demonstrated that its CARREFOUR trademarks were registered many years before the registration of the disputed domain name in several countries. Furthermore, as shown by the Respondent, a simple Google search would have revealed the Complainant and its CARREFOUR trademark. Moreover, the disputed domain name incorporates the CARREFOUR trademark in its entirety. All of these facts indicate that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark and its activities. The Respondent’s registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name may accordingly also be inferred from these circumstances. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2. The bad faith use is also found noting the disputed domain name has been reported as a deceptive site. 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 <carrefourtw.xyz> be transferred to the Complainant. /Benoit Van Asbroeck/ Benoit Van Asbroeck Sole Panelist Date: July 10, 2025

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.