Carrefbr.com

The timeline behind carrefbr.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. Kieran Holmes Case No. D2026-2836 1. The Parties The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins SAS, France. The Respondent is Kieran Holmes, Afghanistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <carrefbr.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 30, 2026. On June 30, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 1, 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 (The RDAP server redacted the value, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 4, 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 July 5, 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 July 8, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 28, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 4, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on August 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 pioneer of the hypermarket concept having opened its first hypermarket in 1959 under the name CARREFOUR. Currently, it employs more than 384,000 people worldwide, has 1.3 million unique visitors daily to its webstores and generates annual revenues in the tens of billions of euros. It operates many stores worldwide including in Brazil. It is listed on the index of the Paris Stock Exchange. The Complainant owns numerous trade mark registrations for CARREFOUR all over the world including the following: • International Trade Mark Registration No. 351147 for CARREFOUR, registered on October 2, 1968; • Brazil Trade Mark Registration No. 7565941 for CARREFOUR, registered on May 10, 1976; and • European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 005178371 for CARREFOUR, registered on August 30, 2007; (individually and collectively, the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant also owns and uses numerous domain names which comprise the Trade Mark including <carrefour.com>, <carrefour.fr>, <carrefour.eu> and <carrefour.net>. The Complainant submitted in evidence a large number of UDRP decisions where panels have stated that the Complainant and the Trade Mark are very well known. Its Facebook account is currently followed by more than 12 million users. The disputed domain name was registered on June 15, 2026, and resolves to an inactive page. The Panel notes that the address provided by the Registrar for the Respondent appears to be fabricated, combining South Yorkshire, United Kingdom locality details with a listed country of Afghanistan. 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 contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad 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 page 3 the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. (See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7). Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the Trade Mark recognizable within the disputed domain name, being an intentional misspelling of the Trade Mark by replacing its last three letters “our” with the letters “br”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and 1.9. 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 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. Based on the available record, 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 must have been aware of the Trade Mark when registering the disputed domain name given the reputation of the Trade Mark and the fact that the Trade Mark was registered long before the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name is inactive. 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. 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. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. page 4 Having reviewed the record, the Panel notes the reputation of the Trade Mark, the composition of the disputed domain name clearly targeting the Complainant, the Respondent’s use of a privacy shield, the fabricated address, and the absence of a Response, and finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not, in these circumstances, prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 name <carrefbr.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Karen Fong/ Karen Fong Sole Panelist Date: August 24, 2026

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