FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
The Complainant contends that is a subsidiary jointly created in 2010 by Crédit Agricole (80%) and Société Générale (20%) to regroup their activities of asset management. It ranks in the worldwide top 10 in the asset management industry, with more than 100 million customers worldwide. The Complainant is Europe's number one asset manager and has offices in 37 countries in Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle-East and the Americas.
The disputed domain name <amundi-hk.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark AMUNDI. Indeed, the trademark AMUNDI is included in its entirety. The Complainant contends that the addition of the abbreviation “HK” (which is the country code for Hong Kong) and a hyphen is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark AMUNDI. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark AMUNDI. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and the domain names associated. It is well-established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP despite the addition of generic or geographical terms.
The Complainant further contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark AMUNDI. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.
Many UDRP decisions have confirmed the Complainant’s rights such as CAC Case No. 102286, AMUNDI ASSET MANAGEMENT v. Jon Mac <amundi.capital> or CAC Case No. 102282, AMUNDI ASSET MANAGEMENT v. Joshua Johnson <amundidigitalassets.com>.
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name but as “Null Null”. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. (FORUM Case No. FA 1781783, FORUM Case No. FA 699652).
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by him in any way to use the trademark AMUNDI. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to a parking page with commercial links. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees (FORUM case No. FA 970871, Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend).
Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark AMUNDI. All the results for a Google search are related to the Complainant presence in Hong Kong. Therefore, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks, which is an evidence of bad faith. The registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to direct Internet traffic to a commercial “links page” in order to profit from click-through fees or other revenue sources constitutes bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) (FORUM case No. FA 697821, T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. utahhealth).
On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|