Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108036

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 has evidenced to be the owner of the following trademark registration relating to its AMUNDI company name and brand:

word trademark AMUNDI, International Registration (World Intellectual Property Organization), registration No.: 1024160, registration date: September 24, 2009, status: active.

Also, the Complainant has demonstrated to own since 2004 the domain name <amundi.com> which resolves to the Complainant’s official website at “www.amundi.com” used to promote the Complainant’s services in the asset management industry.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 2, 2025.

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.

First, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark, as it incorporates the latter in its entirety, simply added by the descriptive term “markets”. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark. Moreover, it has also been held in many UDRP decisions and has meanwhile become a consensus view among UDRP panels that the mere addition of descriptive or other terms (such as e.g. the term “markets”) is not capable of dispelling the confusing similarity arising from such entire incorporation of the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark in the disputed domain name.

Therefore, the Complainant has established the first element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i).

Second, the Complainant contends, and the Respondent has not objected to these contentions, that the Respondent has neither made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is the Respondent commonly known under the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain.

The Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant, nor has it been authorized to use the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way.  Also, there is no reason to believe that the Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name, and the Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the terms “amundi” and/or “amundimarkets” on its own. Finally, the Complainant has demonstrated that – at some point before the filing of the Complaint, e.g. on October 9, 2025 – the disputed domain name resolved to a website at “www.amundimarktes.com” which allegedly offered asset management services, thereby prominently displaying the Complainant’s undisputedly reputed AMUNDI trademark without any authorization by the Complainant to do so. Such use of the disputed domain name, obviously in a manner that aims at somehow unduly profiting from the Complainant’s trademark’s reputation, neither qualifies as a bona fide nor as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the UDRP.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that, therefore, the Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and, thus, the second element of the Policy.

Finally, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

It is obvious from the circumstances of this case that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s business in the asset management industry and its rights in the undisputedly reputed AMUNDI trademark when registering the disputed domain name, and that the latter is directly targeting the Complainant and its trademark. Moreover, resolving the disputed domain name to a website at “www.amundimarktes.com” which allegedly offered at some point in the past asset management services, thereby prominently displaying the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark without any authorization by the Complainant to do so, leaves no doubt that the Respondent, by registering and using the disputed domain name, had the intention to somehow unduly profit from the reputation attached to the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark, and, thus, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s own website. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Therefore, the Complainant has also satisfied the third element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(iii).