{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102090",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-07-13 09:31:41",
    "domain_names": [
        "amundpioneer.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "AMUNDI S.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Fundacion Comercio Electronico"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "According to the Complainant, as the European leader, AMUNDI group of companies is recognized in asset management for product performance and transparency, quality of client relationships based on a long-term advisory approach, efficiency in its organization and teams' promise to serving its clients, commitment to sustainable development and socially responsible investment policies. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name  was registered on 6 July 2018 and is held by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) provides (likely automatically generated) links to various third party content that is associated or otherwise connected with the Complainant and his business,  products bearing Complainant’s trademark or otherwise associated with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.   \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "The Parties' contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that: \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name is a typical example of so called typosquatting. Typosquatting is a form of cybersquatting, and possibly brandjacking, which relies on mistakes such as typos made by Internet users when inputting a website address into a web browser;\r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and its domain names <amundipioneer.com>;  \r\n\r\n- The removal of the letter “I” and the addition of the gTLD extension “.COM” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and it does not change the overall impression of the designation is connected to the Complainants’ trademark and its business;\r\n\r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions concerning such practice and typosquatting in general.\r\n\r\nThus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.\r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name; \r\n\r\n- The Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name;\r\n\r\n-  No bona fide use of the disputed domain name has been established also because the disputed domain name website is a mere parking page with automatically generated commercial links related to the Complainant and its activity.\r\n \r\n\r\nBAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- Seniority of the Complainant's trademark predates the disputed domain name registration and such trademarks are well-known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the disputed domain name due to well-known character thereof and also because it made various references to the Complainant's trademark on the domain name website; \r\n\r\n- It is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks which enjoys strong reputation, plus other facts, such as above described no genuine use of the disputed domain name, are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy;\r\n\r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that (i) registering a domain name incorporating trademarks that enjoy high level of notoriety and well-known character and (ii) abusive use of such trademarks on the domain name website with an aim to mislead the public about origin of the website and services offered through it, both constitute prima facie registration and use in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant presents the following evidence which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n-\tInformation about the Complainant and its business;\r\n-\tExcerpts from a trademark database regarding Complainant's trademark;\r\n-\tScreenshots of the disputed domain name website;\r\n-\tGoogle search result for a query “AMUNDI PIONEER”. \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the Complaint.\r\n\r\n",
    "rights": "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).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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).\r\n",
    "bad_faith": "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).\r\n",
    "procedural_factors": "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.\r\n\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-08-17 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has proven that it is an authorised user and as such has a right to enforce rights arising from the following trademark consisting of the term \"AMUNDI PIONEER”:\r\n\r\n(i) AMUNDI PIONEER (word), International (WIPO) Trademark, priority date 11 July 2017, registration date 11 January 2018, trademark no. 930231, registered for services in class 36.\r\n\r\n(referred to as \"Complainant's trademark\").\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term “AMUNDIPIONEER”.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "AMUNDPIONEER.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}