Carrefour-es.net

The timeline behind carrefour-es.net

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. wang yao Case No. D2026-1225 1. The Parties The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France. The Respondent is wang yao, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <carrefour-es.net> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 20, 2026. On March 22, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 24, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 24, 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 24, 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 25, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 14, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 15, 2026. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on April 23, 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 Carrefour SA, a French public limited company founded in 1959 and a pioneer of the hypermarket concept. With a revenue EUR of 84,9 billion in 2023, the Complainant is listed on the index of the Paris Stock Exchange (CAC 40). The Complainant operates more than 14,000 stores in more than 40 countries worldwide. With more than 500,000 employees worldwide and millions of daily unique visitors in its stores, the Complainant is without a doubt one of the major and well-known worldwide leaders in retail. The Complainant additionally offers travel, banking, insurance and ticketing services. The Complainant owns trademarks registrations worldwide in CARREFOUR. In particular, the Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks registered well before the registration of the disputed domain name: - International trademark CARREFOUR No. 351147, registered on October 2, 1968, duly renewed, and designating goods in international classes 1 to 34 (Annex 3); - International trademark CARREFOUR No. 353849, registered on February 28, 1969, duly renewed, and designating services in international classes 35 to 42 (Annex 4); - European Union trademark CARREFOUR No. 5178371, registered on August 30, 2007, duly renewed, and designating goods and services in international classes 9, 35 and 38 (Annex 5); and - United States of America trademark CARREFOUR No. 6763415, registered on June 21, 2022 and designating services in international class 35. The Complainant also operates the domain name <carrefour.es> for its Spanish market. The disputed domain name was registered on March 5, 2026. The disputed domain name is currently not active. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a blank page under construction with sections “Raw Data”, “Headers” and a message reading “blocked.” 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. 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 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. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 3.1, section 1.7. page 3 Although the addition of other terms like “es” 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 3.1, 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 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 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 Respondent registered the disputed domain name containing the trademark CARREFOUR in 2026; - the Complainant has been using the trademark CARREFOUR for several decades; - the Complainant’s trademarks enjoy a wide-spread continuous reputation, as stated by many decisions (e.g. Carrefour SA v. jean noel ballart, WIPO Case No. D2023-2225); - the disputed domain name combines the well-known trademark CARREFOUR with the term “es”, which may suggest a connection to the Complainant’s sale effort in the Spanish market; - the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name; and - the Respondent is in default. In sum, the Respondent’s registration of a domain name incorporating the well-known trademark CARREFOUR, without any authorization from the Complainant, can in itself be indicative of bad faith. It is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant's trademark at the time of registration, given CARREFOUR’s worldwide recognition as one of the largest retail chains in the world, and the Complainant’s online presence, including through its domain name <carrefour.es>. The Respondent has provided no explanation for the registration of the disputed domain name. 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 3.1, section 3.2.1. page 4 Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name including the “es” term, and, in the absence of a response, 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 <carrefour-es.net> be transferred to the Complainant. /Pablo A. Palazzi/ Pablo A. Palazzi Sole Panelist Date: May 4, 2026

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