The Complainant is Amundi S.A., France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Emma Boiton, Belize. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 7, 2019. On May 7, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 8, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 8, 2019 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 May 9, 2019.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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 May 20, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 9, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 11, 2019.
The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on June 21, 2019. 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.
The language of the proceeding is English. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a French based entity jointly created in 2010 by two French companies to regroup their activities of asset management. The Complainant alleges that it ranks in the top ten worldwide and European leaders in the asset management industry.
The Complainant owns the International Trademark No. 1024160 for AMUNDI, registered on September 24, 2009 in many countries worldwide for services in class 36.
The Complainant holds several domain names comprising its AMUNDI trademark, the principal one being .
The disputed domain names and were both registered on April 29, 2019 and, according to the evidence provided in the Complaint, they were used in connection with Pay-per-click pages.
The Respondent is a physical person apparently located in Belize.
According to Panel’s searches1, the Respondent was involved in at least another two prior UDRP disputes, both decided in the favor of the complainants. See Facebook, Inc. v. Emma Boiton,WIPO Case No. D2016-0623 and LEGO Juris A/S v. Nameinvest Inc. / Emma Boiton,WIPO Case No. D2014-0803. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its well-known trademark AMUNDI, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In view of the Respondent’s default, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds rights in the AMUNDI trademark.
The disputed domain names and incorporate the Complainant’s trademark AMUNDI in its entirety, with the addition of the letters “dws” at the end or at the beginning of the second-domain level portion respectively. However, such addition or misspelling does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable within both the disputed domain names.
Numerous UDRP panels have considered that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) to trademarks in a domain name is not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity. Also, a domain name which consists of a common, obvious or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for the purpose of the first element. See sections 1.8 and 1.9 of theWIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
Further, it is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (e.g., “.net”, “.info”, “.com”, “.org”) may typically be disregarded for the purposes of consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name.
Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark AMUNDI, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not hold any trademark rights, license or authorization whatsoever to use the mark AMUNDI, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of goods and services.
Under the Policy, “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”. See section 2.1 of theWIPO Overview 3.0.
The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions and has not come forward with relevant evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case.
There is nothing in the record suggesting that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain names.
The Respondent has used the disputed domain names in connection with parking pages. Panels have constantly found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s marks or otherwise mislead Internet users. See section 2.9 of theWIPO Overview 3.0.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant holds trademark rights since 2009. The disputed domain names were created in 2019 and incorporate the Complainant’s distinctive mark. For the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith, knowing the Complainant and targeting its trademark.
At the time of filing the Complaint both disputed domain names resolved to parking pages providing links to competing services to those offered by the Complainant.
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location” is evidence of registration and use in bad faith.
The Respondent was using without permission the Complainant’s well known trademark in order to get traffic on its web portal and to obtain commercial gain from the false impression created for Internet users with regard to a potential affiliation or connection with the Complainant.
Furthermore, the Respondent was involved in at least two other UDRP disputes decided against it and it refused to participate in the present proceeding in order to put forward any arguments in its favor.
For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 names and be transferred to the Complainant.
Marilena Comanescu
Sole Panelist
Date: June 25, 2019
1 See section 4.8 of theWIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy