The Complainant is Amundi S.A. of Paris, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Songguangxiu of China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 22net, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 26, 2018. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 27, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On March 29, 2018, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On the same day, the Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Center verified that the 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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 9, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 29, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 30, 2018.
The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on May 4, 2018. 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 French asset management company formed in 2010 by Crédit Agricole and Société Générale with assets under management worldwide. The Complainant is the owner of international trademark registration number 1024160 for AMUNDI, registered on September 24, 2009, designating several jurisdictions, including China and the United States of America, and specifying financial affairs and other services in class 36. That trademark registration remains current. The Complainant has also registered several domain names that incorporate the name “Amundi”, including that it uses in connection with its official website where it provides information about itself and its products.
The Respondent is an individual presumably located in China. The Respondent’s contact address in the Registrar’s WhoIs database is manifestly false as it combines the street address of a gas station in Los Angles, California with a city name in Pinyin that can be translated as “North America” all of which is purported to be located in China. The telephone and fax contact number is a landline located in Shanghai, China. Previous panels have concluded that the Respondent registered and was using domain names in bad faith. See E. REMY MARTIN & C° v. Songguangxiu, WIPO Case No. DCC2017-0006; Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. v. Songguangxiu, WIPO Case No. DCC2017-0010.
The disputed domain name was created on June 22, 2017. It resolves to a parking page that indicates “[t]he domain may be for sale. Click here to inquire about this domain”. The parking page displays a pay-per-click (“PPC”) link labelled “AMUNDI ETF”, which is the name of an exchange-traded fund issued by the Complainant. At other times, the parking page displays other PPC links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark. The addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) suffix does not change the overall impression of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not acquired any rights to the term “Amundi”. The Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant. 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 trademark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. Moreover, the disputed domain name since its registration is parked at a page with commercial links related to the Complainant and its activity.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark. All Google search results for the term “amundi” relate to the Complainant. The disputed domain name since its registration is parked at a page with PPC links related to the Complainant and its activity. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the aim of creating a likelihood of confusion between it and the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”. The Registrar confirmed that the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is in Chinese.
The Complainant requests that the language of the proceeding be English. Its main arguments are that English is the language most widely used in international relations and one of the working languages of the Center; translation of the Complaint would cost more than the overall cost of these proceedings; the contract information in the Registrar’s WhoIs database indicates: “CONTACT US IN ENGLISH”.
Paragraph 10(b) and (c) of the Rules require the Panel to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality, that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case and that the administrative proceeding take place with due expedition. Prior UDRP panels have decided that the choice of language of the proceeding should not create an undue burden for the parties. See, for example, Sanofi and Genzyme Corporation v. Wang Xuesong,WIPO Case No. DCC2016-0007.
The Panel observes that in this proceeding the Complaint was filed in English. The Respondent’s contact information in the Registrar’s WhoIs database invites correspondence in that language, which is an express indication that the Respondent is able to understand that language. Moreover, the Respondent did not indicate any wish to reply to the Complaint or otherwise to participate in this proceeding. In these circumstances, the Panel considers that requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint into Chinese would create an undue burden and delay.
Having considered all the circumstances above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of this proceeding is English. 6.2 Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements:
(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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence provided, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the AMUNDI trademark.
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark with no additional element besides the country or territory code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) suffix of the Cocos Islands “.cc”.
A ccTLD suffix may generally be disregarded in the assessment of confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the Policy. See Vodafone Group PLC v. Wikipiedra S.L. / Jonathan Palma Ruz,WIPO Case No. DCC2010-0006.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the Panel, shall demonstrate that the Respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
“(i) before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, [the respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the [disputed] domain name or a name corresponding to the [disputed] domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) [the respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the [disputed] domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, which is a coined word. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant and that the Complainant has not granted the Respondent any license or authorization to make any use of its AMUNDI trademark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a landing page displaying a PPC link generated on the basis of the Complainant’s trademark. That does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of the Policy. Nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel does not find that the Respondent’s use falls within the first or third circumstance of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
According to the information in the Registrar’s WhoIs database, the Respondent’s name is “Songguangxiu”, not “amundi”. There is no evidence indicating that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name as envisaged by the second circumstance of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
In summary, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not rebut that case because he or she did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions.
Therefore, based on the record of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has satisfied the second element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that certain circumstances, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The second and fourth circumstances are as follows:
“(ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online 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.”
The disputed domain name was registered years after the Complainant obtained registration of its AMUNDI trademark, including in China and the United States of America. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark, which is a coined word, with no additional element besides a TLD suffix, which is a technical requirement of registration. These facts give the Panel reason to find that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time that he or she registered the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark, which is a coined word, with no additional element besides the ccTLD suffix “.cc”. The Respondent has previously registered two other third party trademarks in the “.cc” domain and parked them at parking pages, as in the present case, in bad faith. See E. REMY MARTIN & C° v. Songguangxiu, WIPO Case No. DCC2017-0006 (); Jones Lang LaSalle IP, Inc. v. Songguangxiu, WIPO Case No. DCC2017-0010 (). The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant reflecting its trademark in the “.cc” domain and that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct, as envisaged in paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy.
Moreover, the disputed domain name, which wholly incorporates the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark, resolves to a parking page displaying a PPC link labelled “AMUNDI ETF”, which is the name of one of the Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website 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 of a product or service on the Respondent’s website, as envisaged in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has satisfied the third element in paragraph 4(a) 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.
Matthew Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: May 7, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy