Cartaodigital-carrefour.com

The timeline behind cartaodigital-carrefour.com

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. Francasidava Alves Case No. D2026-0995 1. The Parties The Complainant is CARREFOUR SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France. The Respondent is Francasidava Alves, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <cartaodigital-carrefour.com> 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 9, 2026. On March 9, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 10, 2026, 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 11, 2026, 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 11, 2026. 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 20, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 9, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 20, 2026. The Center appointed Reyes Campello Estebaranz as the sole panelist in this matter on April 28, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a global leader in the retail sector, operating hypermarkets since 1968. Currently, the Complainant operates more than 14,000 stores across 40 countries and employs over 500,000 people worldwide, serving millions of customers daily. In addition to its retail operations, the Complainant provides travel, banking, insurance, and ticketing services. With a reported revenue of EUR 87.2 billion in 2024, the Complainant is listed on the Paris Stock Exchange (CAC 40). Regarding its presence in Brazil, the Complainant has operated in the country since 1975 and currently maintains a network of over 110 hypermarkets, 80 supermarkets, and 140 “Express” convenience stores. The Complainant is the proprietor of numerous trademark registrations for CARREFOUR across multiple jurisdictions, including: - International Trademark Registration No. 351147, CARREFOUR (word), registered on October 2, 1968; - International Trademark Registration No. 353849, CARREFOUR (word), registered on February 28, 1969; and - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 005178371, CARREFOUR (word), registered on August 30, 2007. (Hereinafter collectively referred to as the “CARREFOUR Mark”). The Complainant also holds numerous domain names incorporating the CARREFOUR Mark, including <carrefour.com> (registered on October 25, 1995), which serves as its international corporate portal, as well as <carrefour.fr> (registered on June 23, 2005) and <carrefour.com.br> (registered on January 18, 1997), which resolve to the Complainant’s official websites for the French and Brazilian markets, respectively. The Complainant’s global notoriety is further evidenced by its significant social media presence; for instance, its official Facebook page currently has over 12 million followers. The disputed domain name was registered on February 21, 2026. While it currently appears to be inactive, resolving to a browser error message, evidence provided by the Complainant demonstrates that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a Portuguese-language website. This website prominently featured the CARREFOUR Mark in figurative form, utilizing a logo and a dark/light blue color scheme very similar to the Complainant’s official visual identity. The header of this website included the phrase “soluções financeiras” (financial solutions) alongside a “conexão segura” (secure connection) notice and a padlock icon. The landing page featured the text “Cartão de Crédito Carrefour” (Carrefour Credit Card), followed by a description stating: “The preferred card for those with a negative credit history. Can only be used once a month at any establishment.” The website contained no information regarding its actual owner, nor any disclaimer clarifying the lack of affiliation with the Complainant. 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 asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark, as it incorporates the CARREFOUR Mark in its entirety. The addition of the terms “cartao” (the Portuguese word for “card”) and “digital” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; rather, the CARREFOUR Mark remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. page 3 The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, holds no trademark rights in the term “CARREFOUR,” and has received no authorization or license to use the Complainant's marks. The unauthorized reproduction of a reputed trademark within a domain name is prima facie evidence of a lack of rights. Furthermore, the disputed domain name has not been used for any bona fide offering of goods or services. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to an inactive “Forbidden” page; however, previous evidence shows it was used to host a rogue website that misappropriated the Complainant’s logos to impersonate its financial services. Given the worldwide renown of the CARREFOUR Mark, the disputed domain name’s composition carries a high risk of implied affiliation, falsely suggesting sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In light of the CARREFOUR Mark's global fame, the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name cannot be considered accidental; it was specifically intended to exploit the Complainant’s reputation. The evidence of impersonation - specifically the use of a rogue website to mislead Internet users - demonstrates a clear intent to create a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the site. The Complainant highlights that targeting its trademarks alongside payment-related terms is a known predatory practice, as established in numerous prior UDRP decisions. Lastly, the current non-use of the disputed domain does not preclude a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding, and there is no plausible good faith use the Respondent could make of a domain that so closely mirrors the Complainant's famous marks. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant has submitted all relevant assertions under the Policy, and the dispute properly falls within its scope. The Panel has the authority to decide the dispute by examining the three elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, taking into account all relevant evidence, annexed materials, and submissions. The Panel may also conduct limited independent research pursuant to its general powers, as provided, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules. 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy, namely the CARREFOUR Mark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The CARREFOUR Mark is reproduced in its entirety within the disputed domain name, with the addition of the terms “cartao” and “digital” separated from the mark by a hyphen. The Panel finds that the mark remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. While the addition of other terms - in this case, “cartao” (card) and “digital” - may bear on the assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that such additions do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark under the first element of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Accordingly, 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 that 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 3.1, 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 observes that there is no evidence in the record to support any rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent regarding the registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s name, as disclosed in the Registrar’s verification, bears no similarity to the term “carrefour.” Furthermore, the Panel has confirmed through research in the WIPO Global Brand Database that the Respondent holds no trademark registrations for that term or any other terms contained within the disputed domain name. 1 The current non-use of the disputed domain name does not confer any rights or legitimate interests upon the Respondent. Moreover, its past use in connection with a website that prominently displayed the Complainant’s trademark and logo - purportedly offering services related to the “Carrefour Credit Card” without authorization - constitutes a clear case of impersonation and passing off. UDRP panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as impersonation, phishing, or other forms of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel further observes that the Respondent’s website attempted to elicit user trust by claiming an allegedly “conexão segura” (secure connection) within a sensitive financial context. This indicates a deliberate intention to impersonate the Complainant and its business to unfairly benefit from its reputation, likely as part of a phishing scheme or fraudulent scam. Accordingly, 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. 1 Noting the general powers of a panel articulated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it is well-established that a panel may undertake limited factual research into public records if such information is useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.8. page 5 In the present case, the Panel acknowledges the international reputation and well-known character of the CARREFOUR Mark, as recognized in numerous prior UDRP decisions with which the Panel concurs. See, e.g., Carrefour v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Eliana Maria Lima, WIPO Case No. D2017-2468; Carrefour v. Jean-Claude Bot / Albert Pierre, WIPO Case No. D2017-0969; Carrefour v. Milen Radumilo / United Privacy Corp, WIPO Case No. D2015-1851; Carrefour v. Tony Mancini, USDIET Whoisguard, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2015-0962; Carrefour v. Karin Krueger, WIPO Case No. D2013-2002; Carrefour SA v. fa fa, WIPO Case No. D2025-4018; and Carrefour SA v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2024-2309. The Panel further notes the long-standing, extensive, and continuous use of the mark since 1968, and specifically in Brazil - where the Respondent is located according to the Registrar’s verification - since 1975. This includes extensive use online, where the Complainant commercializes its products through various local websites. Consequently, the Panel finds that, given the fame of the CARREFOUR Mark, the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s prior rights at the time of registration and targeted the mark in bad faith. The Panel further observes that the Complainant offers financial services to its customers, including a proprietary credit card. Therefore, the composition of the disputed domain name - incorporating the terms “cartao” (card) and “digital” - demonstrates the Respondent’s specific knowledge of the Complainant’s business. The Respondent deliberately selected these terms to target the Complainant’s reputed trademark and its financial services for unfair commercial gain. These conclusions are corroborated by evidence showing the prior use of the domain name to host a website that impersonated the Complainant. By prominently featuring the CARREFOUR trademark and logo, the Respondent attempted to pass itself off as an official platform for the Brazilian or Portuguese markets. Such conduct constitutes an illegitimate or illegal activity. Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity, such as passing off or phishing, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Furthermore, the Respondent’s website attempted to elicit trust by indicating a “secure connection” (conexão segura) in a financial context. This points to a fraudulent scheme, likely a phishing scam intended to collect sensitive user data. The Panel finds that such conduct, particularly in a high-risk environment involving financial transactions, is especially harmful to Internet users and constitutes bad faith use. The Panel further finds that the content of the Respondent’s website was of dubious legality. By targeting individuals with a “negative credit history” and suggesting that the “CARREFOUR card” could be used to circumvent the typical consequences of such a credit standing, the website implies the unauthorized issuance of credit cards to ineligible persons. Furthermore, the instruction that such cards should only be used “once a month at any establishment” appears to be a calculated tactic to avoid detection by the Complainant’s fraud prevention systems. This further underscores the Respondent’s bad faith and the overall fraudulent nature of the disputed domain name’s use. Regarding the current apparent inactivity of the disputed domain name, the Panel notes that non-use does not preclude a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Considering the totality of the circumstances - including the distinctiveness or reputation of the CARREFOUR Mark and the deceptive composition of the disputed domain name - the Panel finds that the Respondent’s passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Additionally, the Panel notes that the Respondent failed to submit a Response or provide any explanation for its choice of the disputed domain name. This failure to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie allegations further supports the inference of bad faith. Finally, given the extensive fame and notoriety of the CARREFOUR Mark and the composition of the disputed domain name, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. page 6 Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, likely as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme or other type of scam. 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 <cartaodigital-carrefour.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Reyes Campello Estebaranz/ Reyes Campello Estebaranz Sole Panelist Date: April 30, 2026

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