The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. However, the consensus view of UDRP panels is that the Respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. The Complainant must still establish each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Although the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from a respondent’s default, paragraph 4 of the Policy requires the Complainant to support its assertions with actual evidence in order to succeed in these proceedings. Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from a failure of a party to comply with a provision or requirement of the Rules. The Panel finds that in this case there are not such exceptional circumstances.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AMUNDI Trademark, as the disputed domain name contains the trademark in its entirety with the addition of "-uk", which is a reference to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland where the Complainant is also active, which is insignificant to the overall impression.
The Panel also finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made neither use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. This prima facie evidence was not challenged by the Respondent.
The Complaint showed that the disputed domain name was used within the Complainant's organization for phishing purposes in an attempt to obtain confidential information from the Complainant's employees by impersonating a Complainant's existing employee. In the absence of a Response, this is a clear evidence of use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel further infers from this use which immediately followed the registration of the disputed domain name, that the Respondent had the AMUNDI Trademark in mind when he registered the disputed domain name, which was therefore registered in bad faith.
|