The Complainant is Amundi Asset Management, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 3, 2021. On June 3, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 8, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 8, 2021, 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 June 8, 2021. 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 June 9, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 29, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 30, 2021. The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on July 8, 2021. 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 one of the largest asset managers in Europe, has offices in 36 countries worldwide and over 100 million retail, institutional, and corporate clients. It owns International trade mark registration 1024160 for the AMUNDI trade mark registered on September 24, 2009, designating in particular the United States. It also owns various domain names that incorporate its AMUNDI mark, including The disputed domain name was registered on June 2, 2021 and resolves to a parking page with commercial links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that it owns registered trade mark rights for AMUNDI as set out above. It says that its AMUNDI mark is wholly incorporated into the disputed domain name and is therefore confusingly similar to its registered trade mark rights and that neither the abbreviation “ee” nor the addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” prevents a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not identified in the WhoIs database as the disputed domain name. Neither, says the Complainant, is the Respondent affiliated with the Complainant or have any business dealings with it. Further, it says that it has not licensed or permitted the Complainant to make use of its AMUNDI mark, whether in the disputed domain name, or otherwise. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that it is not related in any way to its business. In addition, says the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links, which is clearly not consistent with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. As far as bad faith is concerned, the Complainant says that its AMUNDI trade mark is used worldwide and enjoys very considerable reputation as a consequence of being present in 36 countries and ranking in the top 10 asset managers globally by assets under management. As a consequence, says the Complainant, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark in circumstances of opportunistic bad faith. As far as use in bad faith is concerned, the Complainant notes that the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant says that this amounts to the Respondent attempting to use the disputed domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to the source, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website to which the disputed domain name resolves in terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trade mark rights for its AMUNDI mark under International trade mark registration 1024160 registered on September 24, 2009, designating in particular the United States. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s registered trade mark and is therefore confusingly similar to it. The fact that the disputed domain name also contains the abbreviation “ee”, a hyphen, and the ccTLD “.co”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. As a result, the Panel finds that the Complaint succeeds under this element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and does not have any business dealings with it. Further, the Complainant has asserted that it has not licensed or permitted the Complainant to make use of its AMUNDI mark, whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is not related in any way to its business. The Complainant has also submitted that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links, which it says is clearly not consistent with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which case has not been rebutted by the Respondent. For this reason and as set out under Part C below, the Panel finds that the Complaint also succeeds under this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered on June 2, 2021 many years after the Complainant’s International trade mark registration 1024160 for its AMUNDI mark in 2009. The Panel finds that the AMUNDI mark is highly distinctive and it appears that it enjoys a very considerable reputation as a consequence of use by the Complainant in numerous countries with a ranking amongst the top 10 asset managers globally and being one of the largest asset managers in Europe, calculated by assets under management. It operates its main website at “www.amundi.com” and also owns various domain names that incorporate its AMUNDI mark, including Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy the use of the disputed domain name intentionally to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a 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 a website or location or of a product or service on the website amounts to evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The disputed domain name in this case redirects to a parking page featuring commercial links to what appear to be links to financial and banking related websites. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that this amounts to the Respondent attempting to use the disputed domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website to which the disputed domain name resolves and fulfils the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and the Complaint also succeeds under this 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 Alistair Payne
Sole Panelist
Date: July 19, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy