Complainant is Amundi of Paris, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
Respondent is Mohammad Ali Mokhtar of Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran. 2. The Domain Name And Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with IRNIC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 11, 2015. On August 11, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 12, 2015 and August 25, 2015, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. Hard copies of the Complaint were received by the Center on August 17, 2015.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "irDRP"), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 25, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 14, 2015. On September 14, 2015, Respondent sent an email communication to the Center requesting an extension of time to file its Response due to the burden of translating documents from Persian to English. On September 15, 2015, the Center granted Respondent until September 22, 2015 to file its Response. On September 22, 2015, Respondent sent an email communication to the Center requesting a further extension of time to file its Response and that a Persian-speaking Panelist be appointed. On September 25, 2015, the Center granted Respondent until October 5, 2015 to file its Response. On October 7, 2015, the Center notified Respondent's default.
The Center appointed Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan as the sole panelist in this matter on October 19, 2015. 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 Panel notes that IRNIC confirmed that the language of the registration agreement is English. In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules the proceeding will thus be conducted in English. 4. Factual Background
Complainant Amundi is a French company (S.A.) jointly created by Crédit Agricole and Société Générale, two very large French banks. Complainant is a leading asset management company with offices around the world in over 30 countries.
According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant is the owner of the international trademark AMUNDI with registration number 1024160 and registration date September 24, 2009. In addition, Complainant operates a website containing the AMUNDI trademark, in particular under "".
The Domain Name was registered on May 19, 2015. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant submits that the Domain Name is identical to its AMUNDI trademark as it contains the AMUNDI trademark in its entirety.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name as Respondent is not affiliated or related to Complainant in any way, nor is Respondent licensed or authorized to use the AMUNDI trademark. Respondent is also not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the trademark. Respondent did not demonstrate use of the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Complainant submits that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. According to Complainant, Respondent no doubt had knowledge of the well-known trademark of Complainant as a Google search on the term "Amundi" only provides results related to Complainant. Complainant also submits that the passive holding of the Domain Name by Respondent is an evidence of bad faith. Finally, according to Complainant there are several other decisions against Respondent in cybersquatting cases. B. Respondent
Respondent did not formally reply to Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable".
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant proves each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the Domain Name should be transferred or cancelled:
(i) the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
The Panel is satisfied that the registrant of record for the Domain Name is Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied by Complainant in this proceeding. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must first of all establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant has established that it is the owner of the international trademark registration for AMUNDI. The Panel notes that Complainant's registration predates the creation date of the Domain Name.
The Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the AMUNDI trademark as its sole and distinctive element. Many Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") decisions have found that a disputed domain name is identical to a complainant's trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates complainant's trademark in its entirety. The Panel considers that these decisions can be considered also under the similar provisions of the irDRP.
The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is identical to Complainant's trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In the opinion of the Panel, Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its trademark or to register the Domain Name incorporating its mark. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark of Complainant. Based on the evidence provided by Complainant, Respondent does not have an active website to which the Domain Name resolves. This cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Respondent is also not commonly known by the Domain Name nor has he acquired any trademark rights.
Respondent has not rebutted Complainant's prima facie case.
Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The trademark of Complainant has been existing before the registration date of the Domain Name. Respondent most likely knew that the Domain Name included Complainant's AMUNDI trademark when he registered the Domain Name.
The Panel notes that there is currently no website at the Domain Name. However, passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith. The Panel further notes that it can conceive of no plausible good faith use to which Respondent could put the Domain Name, which incorporates Complainant's trademark in its entirety.
As an additional consideration, the Panel also notes that Respondent has been found to have registered and/or used domain names in bad faith in several other cases under the Policy which suggests a pattern of conduct on the part of Respondent (see: Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. Mohammed Ali Mokhtari, WIPO Case No. DIR2010-0007 (), and Petroleo Brasiliero S.A. - Petrobas v. Mohammed Ali Mokhtari, WIPO Case No. DIR2013-0004 ()).
The Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Domain Name be transferred to Complainant.
Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan
Sole Panelist
Date: October 28, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy