ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Carrefour SA v. alice rosado andrade Case No. D2024-4432 1. The Parties The Complainant is Carrefour SA, France, represented by IP Twins, France. The Respondent is alice rosado andrade, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name 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 October 29, 2024. On October 29, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 30, 2024, 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 (Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 30, 2024, 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 October 30, 2024. 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 November 1, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 21, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 22, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed Rebecca Slater as the sole panelist in this matter on November 27, 2024. 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 multinational retail corporation headquartered in France. It was a pioneer of the concept of hypermarkets from 1968. The Complainant operates over 12,000 stores in 30 countries and has over 384,000 employees worldwide. The Complainant also offers travel, banking, insurance, and ticketing services. The Complainant has a portfolio of registrations for the CARREFOUR trade mark, including French Trade Mark Registration No. 1565338 for CARREFOUR word mark (registered May 25, 1990), International Trade Mark Registration No. 563304 for CARREFOUR word mark (registered November 6, 1990), European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 008779498 for CARREFOUR word mark (registered July 13, 2010), and United States of America Trade Mark Registration No. 6763415 for CARREFOUR word mark (registered June 21, 2022) (the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant is the registrant of numerous domain names which incorporate the Trade Mark, including and . The Complainant also uses several social media accounts (Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram) which feature the Trade Mark. The Respondent is an individual named alice rosado andrade apparently located in Brazil. The Respondent did not submit a response, and consequently little information is known about the Respondent. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 1, 2024. The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page of the Registrar of the disputed domain name. 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. The Complainant contends that: - The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. It consists of the entirety of Trade Mark preceded by the generic term (“quiz”). The use of “quiz” in association with the Trade Mark adds to any confusion, as retailers often organize events and games to promote their products and services. - The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to use the Trade Mark. It is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has no relevant registered trade mark rights. The Respondent has not used, or made preparations to use, the disputed domain name in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name resolves to a default Registrar parking page.
page 3 - The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. The Trade Mark has been used intensively worldwide since 1968. It is very likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and the Trade Mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name and registered it to suggest an affiliation with the Trade Mark and mislead Internet users. The disputed domain name is currently inactive, but this does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under the doctrine of passive holding. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely: - the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and - the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant. 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 Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, 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 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of another term (here, “quiz”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of this 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 3.0, 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 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
page 4 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 3.0, 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 notes that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Trade Mark and there is no evidence that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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. 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 3.0, section 3.2.1. The Panel finds it highly unlikely that the disputed domain name was registered without knowledge of the Complainant and the Trade Mark, given the longstanding reputation of both the Complainant and the Trade Mark. The Respondent’s objective in registering and using the disputed domain name appears to be to attract Internet users by taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s well-known Trade Mark. This amounts to “opportunistic bad faith” in violation of the Policy. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Trade Mark, the composition of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent’s failure to file a response, 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. 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Rebecca Slater/ Rebecca Slater Sole Panelist Date: December 9, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy