I. IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s mark ‘AMUNDI’, merely adding the generic expression "‘ASSET’" at the end, which merely describes the Complainant’s activity. Furthermore, the owner of International Trademark AMUNDI is recorded as Amundi Asset Management.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
II. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
The Respondent has not submitted any reply. Therefore, it has submitted no information on possible rights or legitimate interests it might hold. On its part, the Complainant has submitted information and arguments which allow it to be reasonably assumed that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has not filed a Response and is therefore in default. In such circumstances when the Respondent has no obvious connection with the disputed domain names, the prima facie showing by the Complainant that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest exists (see WIPO Case No. D2002-0273 <sachsenanhalt>; WIPO Case No. D2002-0521 <volvovehicles.com>).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
III. BAD FAITH
The Respondent has, as a result of his default, not invoked any circumstances which could invalidate the Complainant´s allegations and evidence with regard to the Respondent´s registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) (iiii) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances are deemed to be evidence that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith:
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to its 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 its website or location or of a product orservice on its website or location.
The Complainant's AMUNDI trademark is well known precisely for assets management, well before the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name wholly incorporating a well-known thirdparty mark is, in the Panel´s view, indication of bad faith.
Currently, the Respondent´s website points to a parking page with commercial links (“PPC”) in relation to the Complainant and its competitors. Therefore, the Complainant´s trade mark and company name are unfairly exploited for the Respondent’s commercial interest.
It has, therefore, been satisfactorily demonstrated to the Panel that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
For the reasons stated above, it is the decision of this Panel that the Complainant has satisfied all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
|