A. Complainant has rights over AMUNDI PIONEER
The Complainant has demonstrated that it is the owner of the French trademark AMUNDI PIONEER No. 4 375549, registered July 11, 2017, covering services in class 36. This trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name for more than a year.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark AMUNDI PIONEER in its entirety, the sole difference between the two being the inversion of the letters “I” and “O” in the term “pioneer”. The Panel agrees that this inversion of letters is a minor variant of Complainant’s trademark, which characterizes typosquatting, where a domain name creates a virtually identical and/or confusingly similar mark to the Complainant’s trademark so that Internet users who misspell Complainant’s trademark when searching for it are diverted to Respondent’s website.
Typosquatting was recognized, for instance, in the CAC Case No. 102221, Arcelor Mittal SA v. lykelink, where the disputed domain name <arcelomrittal.com> only slightly varied from the trademark “ARCELOR MITTAL” by the inversion of the letters “R” and “M”.
In addition, gTLDs – such as <.com> in our case – must not be taken into consideration when assessing the likelihood of confusion since they are only a technical requirement (See e.g. Crédit Agricole S.A. v. Roy M Oishi, CAC case No. 101545).
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is highly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has met its burden of showing that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has valid trademark rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Respondent has no Rights or Legitimate Interests
It clearly appears from the observations submitted by the Complainant that there is no affiliation between the Complainant and the Respondent and that the Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to use its trademark or to register the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name as the Whois information indicates that the registrant is Fundaction Comercio Electrinico.
Moreover, the Complainant provided a screenshot dated November 21, 2018 showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page featuring sponsored links related to the Complainant’s field of activity. The Panel agrees that such use is not enough to characterize a bona fide offering of goods and services in relation with the disputed domain name. Also, the Panel notes that the use of the disputed domain name has changed since the beginning of the procedure as it now resolves to random pages reproducing famous trademarks and offering Internet users the opportunity to win goods, such as smartphones. Such use does not prove either that the Respondent has rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, in the Panel’s view, the Complainant has shown a prima face case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
For this reason, the burden of proof shifts from the Complainant to the Respondent, who has not answered the complaint. It should be noted that “Lack of any response is another element against Respondent’s legitimate use or interest in the dispute domain name” (See e.g. Loro Piana S.p.A. v. Robert Remy, CAC Case No. 101595).
The Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith
Considering how the <amundipoineer.com> domain name is constructed, it seems implausible that the Respondent did not have the Complainant’s trademark “AMUNDI PIONEER” in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Although the Respondent appears to be based in Panama whereas the Complainant invokes a French trademark, because of the Complainant’s notoriety and because the Respondent did not contest the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel believes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the goal that Internet users would believe that the disputed domain name was registered or at least approved by the Complainant., in particular since the Complainant’s trademarks for the sign “AMUNDI” have been recognized as being well known by previous Panels (CAC Case No. 101483, AMUNDI ASSET MANAGEMENT v. Syed Hussain / Domain Management MIC <amundipioneer.com>).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
Regarding the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Panel takes note that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is a parking page carrying sponsored links relating to the Complainant’s field of activity, as was shown on the screenshot provided by the Complainant. Previous Panels have considered that such use of a domain name demonstrated “some knowledge and an attempt to leverage the reputation of the trademark” (CAC Case No. 102233, Geox S.p.a. v. Jeongyong Cho).
Even though, as previously stated, the disputed domain name now points to pages displaying various famous trademarks and offering users the chance to win products, such modifications do not affect the Panel’s opinion that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.
In view of the above, the Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel, that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|