Paragraph (4)(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the domain name registered by the Respondent be transferred to the Complainant:
1) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark ("mark") in which the Complainant has rights; and
2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel is satisfied the Complainant has satisfied all three elements for the principal reasons set out below.
1. RIGHTS IN AN IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TRADEMARK
The Complainant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Panel that it has registered rights in the trade mark AMUNDI that predates the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
To satisfy paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it is enough that the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has registered rights in a trademark that predates the registration of the disputed domain name in a single jurisdiction (even if that single jurisdiction is not one in which the Respondent resides or operates) (Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy, Inc D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001); see also WIPO Case Nos. D2012-0141 and D2011-1436). The Panel is satisfied of such.
The next matter is therefore to address if the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark AMUNDI.
The Panel disregards the gTLD suffix ".com" for the purpose of this comparison. However the Panel further notes that if such a suffix were to add anything it would only make the disputed domain name more similar to the Complainant's <amundi.com> domain name, which it has used and registered for over 14 years and which has the same suffix.
Hence the disputed domain name varies materially from the AMUNDI trademark only by way of the addition of "-e", which is unlikely to distinguish the disputed domain name in the eyes of an internet user from the trademark. The Panel refers to Inter Ikea Systems B.V. v. Ebills Online Services <ikea-j.com>., WIPO Case No. D2011-1948, where it was said that "the addition of a single letter and a dash is insufficient to avoid confusion".
2. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
The Panel is unaware of any relevant rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent. Further as the Respondent has failed to file a Response it would appear none exist.
3. BAD FAITH
As mentioned above, the disputed domain name has been used to redirect users to a website that offers various commercial services, including the Complainant's services and the Complainant's competitors' services through sponsored links. In such circumstances it seems highly unlikely the Respondent did not know of the Respondent's extensively used trade mark. Such conduct by the Respondent, which involves diverting traffic to competitors' websites, is for profit and act in bad faith.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that all three elements under Paragraph (4)(a) of the Policy have been satisfied.
|