ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Amundi Asset Management v. Laurent Moreac Case No. D2024-3182 1. The Parties The Complainant is Amundi Asset Management, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Laurent Moreac, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
is registered with CloudFlare, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 2, 2024. On August 2, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 5, 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 (DATA REDACTED) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 28, 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 August 29, 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 August 30, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 19, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 27, 2024. The Center appointed Alexandre Nappey as the sole panelist in this matter on October 10, 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.
page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is AMUNDI ASSET MANAGEMENT, is amongst the European leaders in financial assets management services which has offices in Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle-East and the Americas. The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark No. 1024160 AMUNDI registered since September 24, 2009. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain names registered and used since August 26, 2004, and since May 28, 2009. The disputed domain name was registered on August 1, 2024. The disputed domain name is not active, but MX servers are configured. 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 similar to its earlier trademark AMUNDI, to the point of creating confusion. Indeed, the disputed domain name reproduces the earlier trademark AMUNDI in its entirety. The addition of the generic term “GROUPE” (French for “Group”) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark AMUNDI. Then, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark AMUNDI or apply for the registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. As the disputed domain name is inactive, the Complainant contends that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name, and it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. Third, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that its trademark AMUNDI is used worldwide. Consequently, the Complainant contends that, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark, constituting opportunistic bad faith. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is inactive. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not
page 3 be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, the Complainant has the burden of proof to make its case in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, and to demonstrate that: (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 respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. However, under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, where a Party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”. Having considered the Parties’ submissions, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules and applicable law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above-mentioned elements are the following: 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 mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other term, here “groupe” 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 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
page 4 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 3.0, 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 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 Complainant has shown that its AMUNDI trademark has been registered and used for years and is well known in the financial service industry. (See Amundi Asset Management v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation / daniel, clark, WIPO Case No. D2019-1335: “the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark is well-known, and has been in use since at least 2009”). Thus, the Respondent could not reasonably be unaware of the Complainant’s rights when it registered the disputed domain name, and the Panel cannot conceive any use that the Respondent could make of the disputed domain name that would not interfere with the Complainant’s trademark rights. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) 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 or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, 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. Moreover, the Complainant has produced evidence showing that the Respondent had set up MX servers in relation with the disputed domain name, which suggests that the Respondent may use it as an email address, which could further be evidence of 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Alexandre Nappey/ Alexandre Nappey Sole Panelist Date: October 24, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy