Carrefourshop.top

The timeline behind carrefourshop.top

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. 郭玉辉 (Yu Hui Guo) Case No. D2026-3688 1. The Parties The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins SAS, France. The Respondent is 郭玉辉 (Yu Hui Guo), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <carrefourshop.top> is registered with West263 International Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 18, 2026. On August 18, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 19, 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 August 21, 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 in English on August 22, 2026. On August 21, 2026, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On August 22, 2026, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 24, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 13, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 14, 2026. The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes 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 of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background A. Complainant The Complainant is a company incorporated in France and listed on the Paris Stock Exchange. The Complainant is one of the worldwide leaders in retail and a pioneer, in 1968, of the concept of hypermarkets. The Complainant had a turnover of EUR 82 billion in 2025. The Complainant operates more than 15,000 stores in more than 40 countries worldwide, including in China, where the Respondent resides, under the trade mark CARREFOUR (the “Trade Mark”), with more than 500,000 employees worldwide and about 1.3 million daily unique visitors to its websites. The Complainant is the owner of registrations in jurisdictions worldwide for the Trade Mark for CARREFOUR, including International Registration No. 351147, with a registration date of October 2, 1968. B. Respondent According to the Registrar’s verification, the Respondent is an individual located in China. C. The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name was registered on July 25, 2026. D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name is resolved to a website, available in multiple languages including English and Chinese, prominently featuring the Trade Mark and the Complainant’s logo, and purportedly offering a wide range of household goods (the “Respondent’s Website”). 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 Respondent has used the disputed domain name illegitimately in respect of the Respondent’s Website, in order to impersonate the Complainant, create the false impression of an affiliation with the Complainant, and induce visitors to input their mobile telephone numbers and contact a Telegram account, likely to engage in phishing or other fraud. page 3 The Complainant submits further that the Respondent was the respondent in Carrefour SA. v. 郭玉辉 (Yu Hui Guo), WIPO Case No. D2026-1683, involving the domain name <carrefourshop.shop>, in which the panel ordered transfer of the relevant domain name used in respect of a copycat website impersonating the Complainant, and that the disputed domain name herein was registered just a few weeks after the decision was handed down in the above WIPO Case - indicating that the Respondent’s Website was a replacement for the Respondent’s previously infringing website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that the Respondent’s Website is available predominantly in English. The Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 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 trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 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 entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “shop”) 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 Trade 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. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, claimed as attempted impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, claimed as attempted impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. In addition, the Panel finds that the Respondent has been involved in at least one previous case filed by the Complainant as referenced in Section 5. above, which constitutes a pattern of bad faith conduct under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes 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 <carrefourshop.top> be transferred to the Complainant. /Sebastian M.W. Hughes/ Sebastian M.W. Hughes Sole Panelist Date: September 24, 2026

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