Carrefourpasscliente.com + 4 more domains

The timeline behind carrefourpasscliente.com

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. juan dorara, fasthy, kio gusan, gofast2, Oliver johnson Case No. D2026-0236 1. The Parties The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France. The Respondents are juan dorara, fasthy, United States of America (“United States”), kio gusan, gofast2, United States and Oliver johnson, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names <carrefourpassclientes.online>, <carrefourpassinicio.online> and <carrefourpass-movil.online> are registered with Dynadot Inc. The disputed domain name <carrefourpasscliente.com> is registered with Realtime Register B.V. The disputed domain name <carrefourpass-incidencia.online> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com. (the “Registrars”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 21, 2026. On January 21, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 22, 2026, the Registrars 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 February 3, 2026 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, 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 February 4, 2026. page 2 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 10, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 2, 2026. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on March 4, 2026. The Center appointed Peter Burgstaller as the sole panelist in this matter on March 10, 2026. 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 French based company and a worldwide leader in retail and operates stores around the world; it also offers travel, banking, insurance, and ticketing services. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations containing the mark CARREFOUR around the world, inter alia: - European Union trademark registration (word), Reg. No 005178371, registered August 30, 2007; and - International Trademark registrations (word), Reg. No 351147, registered October 2, 1968, and Reg. No. 353849, registered February 28, 1969, designating several jurisdictions around the world (Annexes 4-1 – 4-4 to the Complaint). The Complainant further owns the International Trademark registration for CARREFOUR PASS (word), Reg. No 719166, registered August 18, 1999, designating several jurisdictions around the world. (Annex 4-5 to the Complaint). It further owns several domain name registrations containing the mark CARREFOUR, e.g. <carrefour.com>, registered October 25, 1995, <carrefour.fr>, registered June 23, 2005 and <pass-carrefour.com>, registered October 6, 2019 (Annexes 5-1 – 5-3 to the Complaint). The Complainant also has online presence on social media platforms, especially on Facebook (Annex 7-1 to the Complaint). The disputed domain names were registered for <carrefourpasscliente.com> on January 13, 2026, for <carrefourpassclientes.online> on January 14, 2026, for <carrefourpass-incidencia.online> on January 8, 2026, for <carrefourpassincicio.online> on January 6, 2026 and for <carrefourpass-movil.online> on January 20, 2026. At the time of filing the Complaint access to websites to which the disputed domain names pointed were blocked and the following security alert appeared “Dangerous site – Attackers on the site you tried visiting might trick you...”. page 3 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asks for consolidating the disputes against different disputed domain name registrants in a single proceeding since there is a set of indicators that suggest that the disputed domain names were registered by the same entity. 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 the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the distinctive CARREFOUR mark and the CARREFOUR PASS mark in which the Complainant has rights. The only differences to the famous CARREFOUR mark are the suffixes “passcliente”, “passclientes”, “pass-incidencia”, passinicio” and “pass-movil”; with regard to the CARREFOUR PASS mark, the only differences are the suffixes “cliente”, “clientes”, “-incidencia”, “inicio” and “-mobil”. The Complainant alleges that the well-known trademark CARREFOUR is reproduced in its entirety and immediately recognizable since the addition of these suffixes cannot prevent the finding of confusing similarity towards the Complainant’s CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR PASS marks. Furthermore, the Complainant notes that the Respondents do not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondents are not linked to the Complainant in any way whatsoever and have never been authorized by the Complainant to register domain names that are similar to its trademark. The Respondents are moreover not commonly known by or associated with the disputed domain names and do not use them for any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith by the Respondents. The disputed domain names were registered decades after the Complainant has established rights in the mark CARREFOUR and this mark is distinctive and well known; hence, the Respondents must have been aware of the Complainant and its rights in the mark CARREFOUR when registering the disputed domain names. In addition, the Complainant alleges that the Respondents chose the disputed domain names because of their similarity or identity with a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and legitimate interests. The Complainant thus states that the Respondents acquired and are using the disputed domain names to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s famous and distinctive marks even the disputed domain names are not actively used and blocked for security reasons. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Procedural Issue: Consolidation of Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the 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. page 4 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 Select UDRP Questions, (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes that: - the disputed domain names were registered within 14 days (between January 6, 2026 and January 20, 2026); - the disputed domain names have a very similar naming pattern: all of them using the distinctive and famous marks CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR PASS at the beginning and then descriptive suffixes in Spanish language; - the nominally different registrants are all located in the United States, where two of them share a similar organization name (fasthy/gofast2); two of them share the same email provider (@proton.me); - the registrant information provided by the concerned Registrars suggests that the disputed domain names were registered using fanciful and untruthful information (i.e. address “Pennsylvania y la oficina de correos James A. Farley en Midtown”); - it is also worth noting that “kio gusan/gofast2” has already been involved in other UDRP proceedings with nominally different registrants, including cases where other registrants bear similar names, such as “fastpanel, kio gusanagui” (Annexes 10-1 and 10-2 to the Complaint); and - finally, the Respondents did not react in any way to the proceedings – the Respondents neither objected to the consolidation request nor filed any Response. Therefore, 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 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain names are 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 with respect to 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 name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of the mark CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR PASS for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. In the present case, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to these marks in which the Complainant has rights since they incorporate the entirety of the mark CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR PASS and only add the descriptive terms in Spanish language as suffixes, namely “cliente”, “clientes”, “- incidencia”, “inicio” and “-movil”. page 5 It has long been established under UDRP decisions that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain names, the mere addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. This is the case at present – the CARREFOUR trademark clearly remains recognizable in each of the disputed domain names. Finally, it has also long been held that generic Top-level Domains (“gTLDs”) (in this case “.com” and “.online”) are generally disregarded when evaluating the confusing similarity of a disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Based on the available record, 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. While 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 often impossible 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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, since it has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred, or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the CARREFOUR or CARREFOUR PASS mark in any manner. Furthermore, the composition of the disputed domain names, comprising the Complainant’s mark CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR PASS in its entirety together with descriptive terms in Spanish language as suffixes which is likely to mislead Internet users, cannot be considered fair use – the opposite is the case: such conduct does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name and has used or made any preparations to use the disputed domain names in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent did not file a response and hence has not rebutted the Complainant’s contentions. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith As stated in many decisions rendered under the Policy (e.g. Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0001) both conditions, registration and use in bad faith, must be demonstrated; consequently, the Complainant must show that: - the disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent in bad faith, and - the disputed domain names are being used by the Respondent in bad faith. (i) The Complainant has established rights in the marks CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR PASS decades before the registration of the disputed domain names. Furthermore, the Complainant is using the mark CARREFOUR as its primary domain name <carrefour.com>, to host its business website; the Complainant has also a strong Internet presence, especially on Facebook. page 6 Because of the reputation of the CARREFOUR mark, it is inconceivable for this Panel that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names without knowledge of the Complainant’s rights. Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous trademark by an unaffiliated entity (as it is in the present case) can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. Moreover, the addition of descriptive terms as suffixes to the CARREFOUR and CAREFOUR PASS marks in the disputed domain names rather strengthens the impression that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its mark when registering the disputed domain names. Finally, a simple online search for “carrefour” would have shown the Complainant and its marks. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.3. Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith by the Respondent. Further, the Respondent has not provided a formal Response and has failed to rebut the Complainant’s contentions or provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use. Also, the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names can be inferred from the current warning on the website, stating: “Attackers on the site you tried visiting might trick you into installing software or revealing things like your passwords, phone, or credit card numbers.” Panels have held that the use of a domain name for such illegitimate activity constitutes bad faith. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <carrefourpasscliente.com>, <carrefourpassclientes.online>, <carrefourpass-incidencia.online>, <carrefourpassinicio.online> and <carrefourpass-movil.online> be transferred to the Complainant. /Peter Burgstaller/ Peter Burgstaller Sole Panelist Date: March 21, 2026

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