Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107568

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is the registered owner of international trademark n° 1024160 <AMUNDI> (verbal) registered on September 24, 2009 for services in class 36 and designating many countries across the world.

1. Complainant is Europe’s largest asset manager by assets under management and ranks in the top 10 globally.

2. It results from the registrar verification that the date of registration of the disputed domain name by the current registrant was May 8, 2025.

3. The disputed domain name is currently inactive. 

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

1.

The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant's international trademark AMUNDI (n° 1024160). The addition of the generic term "credit" does not eliminate confusing similarity, particularly because this term is directly relevant to the Complainant’s financial services sector and thus merely descriptive. Furthermore, the trademark appears at the very beginning of the domain name, a position that is especially prominent and likely to catch the attention of the public. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark for purposes of UDRP standing.

2.

In the absence of any Response, or any other information from the Respondent indicating the contrary, the Panel further holds that the Complainant successfully presented a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, it results from the Complainant's undisputed allegations and evidence that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. Moreover, the Respondent has not demonstrated any preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering goods or services. Finally, the Panel has not been presented any evidence that could lead the Panel to the conclusion that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that he has acquired trademark rights.

3.

From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While looking at the totality of the circumstances of the case, the Panel particularly considers the following factors to be relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine in the present case:

(i) the Complainant's trademark enjoys an enhanced degree of distinctiveness serving over 100 million retail, institutional and corporate clients and being Europe’s largest asset manager by assets under management;

(ii) the Respondent's failure to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use;

(iii) the Respondent’s concealing its identity behind a privacy shield;

(iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name, identically containing the Complainant's trademark, may be put; and

(v) the absence of any address or other data, allowing to identify the Respondent and serve the CAC’s Written Notice.

In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.