Carrefourpasshome.info + 4 more domains

The timeline behind carrefourpasshome.info

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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. Gina T Halford, Lisa Donofrio Case No. D2025-3755 1. The Parties The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France. The Respondent is Gina T Halford, Lisa Donofrio, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Disputed Domain Names and Registrar The Disputed Domain Names <carrefourpasshome.info>, <carrefourpasshtml.info>, <carrefourpass-login.info>, <carrefourpassphp.info> and <webcarrefourpass.com> are registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 16, 2025. On September 16, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On September 17, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Names 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 September 18, 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 September 19, 2025. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 18, 2025 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaints for the Disputed Domain Names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 19, 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 September 22, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 12, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 13, 2025. The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on October 17, 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 one of the worldwide leaders in retail and a pioneer of the concept of hypermarkets back in 1968. The Complainant is listed on the index of the Paris Stock Exchange (CAC 40) and had revenues of EUR 84,9 billion in 2023. The Complainant operates more than 14,000 stores in more than 40 countries worldwide, has more than 500,000 employees and millions of daily unique visitors in its stores. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations worldwide for or including CARREFOUR, such as the following: - the International Trademark Registration number 351147 for CARREFOUR (word), registered on October 2, 1968, covering goods in International Classes from 1 to 34; - the International Trademark Registration number 719166 for CARREFOUR PASS (word), registered on August 18, 1999, covering services in International Class 36; and - the United States Trademark Registration number 6763415 for CARREFOUR (word), filed on December 8, 2020, registered on June 21, 2022, covering services in International Class 35 1 . The Complainant owns numerous domain names incorporating CARREFOUR, such as <carrefour.com> registered on October 25, 1995, <carrefour.fr> registered on June 23, 2005, and <pass-carrefour.com> registered on October 6, 2019. Numerous UDPR Panels have acknowledged the Complainant’s trademark reputation. See Carrefour SA v. packet emblazer, WIPO Case No. D2024-4675 and cases cited therein. The Disputed Domain Names were registered as follows: - <carrefourpasshome.info>, was registered on September 2, 2025; - <carrefourpasshtml.info>, was registered on August 27, 2025; - <carrefourpass-login.info>, was registered on August 26, 2025; - <carrefourpassphp.info>, was registered on August 29, 2025; and - <webcarrefourpass.com>, was registered on August 25, 2025. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Names were not actively used, they resolved either to error or standard “under construction” pages, or were blocked by the browser Phishing and Malware Protection features. 1 See Panel’s general power to conduct limited searches, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.8. page 3 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 Names. Notably, the Complainant contends that its earlier trademarks enjoy a wide-spread worldwide continuous reputation; the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to its earlier trademarks CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR PASS, which are entirely reproduced and are immediately recognizable in the Disputed Domain Names, with the mere addition of generic Internet related terms (“home”, “html”, “login”, “php”, “web”) which does nothing to diminish the likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s marks and the Disputed Domain Names; the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names; the Respondents registered and are using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith mainly because: the Complainant and its trademarks are so widely well-known that it is inconceivable that the Respondents ignored the Complainant or its earlier rights when registering the Disputed Domain Names; since the Complainant’s marks CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR PASS are globally recognized and enjoy a strong reputation, the registration of the Disputed Domain Names incorporating the entirety of these prior trademarks, strongly suggests that the Respondents were fully aware of the Complainant’s marks at the time of registration; the Complainant submits that the Respondents chose the Disputed Domain Names because of their confusing similarity to one or more trademarks in which the Complainant has rights and legitimate interest and this was most likely done in the hope and expectation that Internet users, searching for the Complainant’s services and products, would instead come across the Disputed Domain Names and such use cannot be considered a good faith use; the current use of the Disputed Domain Names may not be considered a good faith use since, by simply maintaining the Disputed Domain Names, the Respondents are preventing the Complainant from reflecting its name and trademarks in the corresponding domain names; moreover, the non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding and the use of the Disputed Domain Name <webcarrefourpass.com> in connection with a website containing potentially harmful material or used for fraudulent purposes (such as phishing) cannot be regarded as a good faith use under the Policy; and due to the long-lasting international relationship of the Complainant and its trademarks, the Complainant cannot think of any future use of the Disputed Domain Names that may be done by the Respondents in good faith. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6.1 Preliminary Procedural Issue: Consolidation of Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different Disputed Domain Name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the disputes against the multiple Disputed Domain Name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The Disputed Domain Name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the Disputed Domain Names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2. page 4 As regards common control, the Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Names: (i) were created in a similar manner, incorporating the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR PASS together with Internet-related terms (“home”, “html”, “login”, “php”, and “web”); (ii) were registered within a short timeframe of nine days; (iii) are registered with the same Registrar and in the same Top-Level Domain, “.info” except for the Disputed Domain Name <webcarrefourpass.com>; (iv) are not associated with active websites; (v) both registrants are supposedly residents in the city of New York, United States, and none provides a street address but rather unusual indications; and (vi) the Respondents have not objected to the consolidation claims made by the Complainant despite the communications sent by the Center to them. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different Disputed Domain Name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 6.2 Substantive Issue: Three Elements Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that: (i) the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are 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 Names. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 Panel finds the mark CARREFOUR, and the verbal element of the mark CARREFOUR PASS, is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Names. Accordingly, each of the Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. While the addition of other terms, here “home”, “html”, “login”, “php”, “web”, and a hyphen in the Disputed Domain Name <carrefourpass-login.info>, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. 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 page 5 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 record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. 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 Names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel notes the composition of the Disputed Domain Names which combines the Complainant’s well- known trademark CARREFOUR with the term, “pass” (also reproducing the Complainant’s mark CARREFOUR PASS) and the non-distinctive terms “home”, “html”, “login”, “php”, “web”, is suggesting an affiliation with the Complainant. UDRP panels have largely held that such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Names were registered in bad faith, with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark particularly because the Complainant’s trademark predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Names by more than 50 years and is highly distinctive and well known worldwide. 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. At the time of filing the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Names were not connected to active websites. UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and international reputation of the Complainant’s trademark; the composition of the Disputed Domain Names (i.e., the combination of the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR PASS and non-distinctive terms); the Respondent’s failure to respond to the present proceedings; the Respondent’s provision of inaccurate or incomplete contact information in the WhoIs; the implausibility of any good faith use to which the Disputed Domain Names may be put, and finds that, in the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Names does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. The Panel notes that one of the Disputed Domain Names, <webcarrefourpass.com>, directs to a web page that warns Internet users that they may be tricked into doing something dangerous like installing software or revealing [their] personal information as passwords, credit cards number. The use of the Disputed Domain Names for an illegal activity would also be considered abusive registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names under the Policy. Previous UDRP panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can, by itself, create a presumption of bad faith for the purpose of Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0., section 3.1.4. page 6 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 Names, <carrefourpasshome.info>, <carrefourpasshtml.info>, <carrefourpass-login.info>, <carrefourpassphp.info>, <webcarrefourpass.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. /Marilena Comanescu/ Marilena Comanescu Sole Panelist Date: October 29, 2025

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