Carrefourmarket.pro

The timeline behind carrefourmarket.pro

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. JUS TICE Case No. D2026-3199 1. The Parties The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins SAS, France. The Respondent is JUS TICE, Israel. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <carrefourmarket.pro> is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 21, 2026. On July 22, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 23, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 28, 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 28, 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 August 12, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 1, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 3, 2026. The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration page 2 of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a significant player in retail operating in hypermarkets back to 1968. It is the owner, inter alia of the following trademarks: • International trademark CARREFOUR No. 351147, registered on October 2, 1968 and designating goods in International classes 1 to 34; • International trademark CARREFOUR No. 353849, registered on February 28, 1969 and designating services in International classes 35 to 42; and • European Union trademark CARREFOUR MARKET No. 6659643, registered on December 18, 2008 in relation to retail supermarket services. In addition, the Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names identical to, or comprising, its CARREFOUR trademark, both within generic and country Top-Level Domains including <carrefour.com> registered since 1995, <carrefour.fr> since 2005, and <carrefourmarket.fr > since 2007. The disputed domain name was registered on July 15, 2026 and does not point to an active web site, merely an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) holding page. The Respondent is reportedly located in Israel, and has given what appears to be a false address for the data registration details of the Domain Name. The purported street address repeats the city name and does not identify a complete or verifiable street address. 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 identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trade marks containing them in their entirety and adding only generic elements which do not prevent the Complainant’s marks being recognizable in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use its trademarks and the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Pointing the disputed domain name to a holding page is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant and cannot be put to any conceivable legitimate use. It has been registered in opportunistic bad faith to take advantage of the Complainant’s trade mark to mislead Internet users and is being passively held. The Respondent has given false address details in the WhoIs details for the disputed domain name which is a further indication of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 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 Complainant’s CARREFOUR MARKET mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name adding only the generic Top-Level Domain “.pro”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to that CARREFOUR MARKET mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 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 Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant or commonly known by the disputed domain name. Since the disputed domain name has not been used except for a holding page there is no legitimate noncommercial fair use or bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant’s trade mark is well known and the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. The Respondent has supplied what appears to be false contact details to the WhoIs register which demonstrates a lack of rights or legitimate interests. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.3. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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 has not used the disputed domain name which points to a holding page. 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. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR MARKET trademarks in their entirety. Given the reputation of these marks, the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Respondent’s submission of what appears to be false address details in the data registration details for the disputed domain name further indicates bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.6. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a holding page) 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 and reputation of the Complainant’s CARREFOUR trademarks, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and 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. Therefore, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 <carrefourmarket.pro> be transferred to the Complainant. /Dawn Osborne/ Dawn Osborne Sole Panelist Date: September 17, 2026

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