{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102063",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-06-22 09:03:57",
    "domain_names": [
        "finance-pioneer.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "AMUNDI S.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Autorenwerft GmbH"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": "Dr. Jörg Heyer",
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, Amundi SA, is a subsidiary jointly created by Credit Agricole (80%) and Society Generale (20%) to regroup their activities of asset management. It ranks in the top ten worldwide for asset management.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns international trademark number 1398148 AMUNDI PIONEER registered on 11 January 2018. It also owns through its subsidiaries several trade marks for the mark PIONEER, and the domain names <pioneerfunds.com>, registered 21 January 1997 and <pioneerinvestments.com>, registered 7 May 2004.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent, Autonwerft GmbH, is a German limited liability company under registered number HRB 11105. Its corporate purpose is \"the writing and publishing of journalistic texts and the exploitation of copyrights pertaining thereto\". Its managing director and sole shareholder is Mr Gabor Steinhart, a German journalist, who was previously had been an editor of Handelsblatt, Germany's biggest daily newspaper. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is the general partner of Media Pioneer GmbH & Co KG, a limited partnership organised under the laws of Germany with registered number HRA 5470B. Its corporate purpose is the writing and publishing of journalistic texts. The Respondent together with Media Pioneer GmbH & Co KG, publishes a daily political, economic and financial newsletter called the \"Steingart Morning Briefing\". \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 11 June 2018. It redirects to an inactive website.  \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name. ",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark AMUNDI PIONEER and its associated domain names and submits that:\r\n\r\n(i)\tThe disputed domain name contains the term PIONEER associated with the term “finance”. The term PIONEER is included in the disputed domain name in its entirety. The Complainant’s trade marks are all registered in class 36, which includes mainly services rendered in financial and monetary affairs and services rendered in relation to insurance contracts of all kinds. \r\n\r\n(ii)\tThe addition of the term “finance” refers to these services, and to the Complainant’s trade marks. The terms “finance\" and “investment” are conceptually close. The addition of the term “finance” can create a likelihood of confusion in the Internet users’ mind, making them believe that there is a relation between the Complainant and the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n(iii)\tAs the Complainant is widely known for its financial services, this association is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trade marks.\r\n\r\n(iv)\tThe addition of the generic top-level domain suffix “.com” does not change the overall impression that the disputed domain name is connected to the Complainant’s trade marks. Nor does it prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trade marks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant therefore claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its prior trade mark AMUNDI PIONEER. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and submits that:\r\n\r\n(i)\tThe Complainant must establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once a prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy. \r\n\r\n(ii)\tThe Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. \r\n\r\n(iii)\tNo licence or authorisation has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trade mark AMUNDI PIONEER, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n(iv)\tThe disputed domain name redirects to the domain name <leere.seite>, which has been inactive. \r\n\r\n(v)\tTherefore, the Respondent has not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, which confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name and demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or interest in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith. The Complainant:\r\n\r\n(i) Repeats the assertion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark AMUNDI PIONEER and that the addition of addition of the term \"finance\" is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark AMUNDI PIONEER and that the addition of the term \"finance\" renders the disputed domain name more confusing because it creates an immediate association with the Complainant's trade marks and activities.\r\n\r\n(ii) Submits that through its subsidiary it owns a large portfolio of trade marks containing the word PIONEER. It is widely known as an asset manager claims that the association of the word \"pioneer\" with \"finance\" makes it obvious that the Respondent knew of the Complainant's rights before the registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nClaims the Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name and therefore the Respondent has registered it and is using it in bad faith. \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent claims that the disputed domain name is neither identical nor confusingly similar to the protected mark for the following reasons:\r\n\r\n(i)\t\"finance-pioneer\" and \"investment pioneer\" are not confusingly similar. While it is true that the terms \"finance\" and \"investment\" both relate to \"money\" in its broadest sense, \"finance\" covers a much broader space than \"investment\". The latter describes the process of spending money for a specific purpose, but \"finance\" is not similarly limited and its meaning goes far beyond the notion of \"investment\". Thus, there is no reason to assume that both terms are confusingly similar by their meaning. They are also not confusingly similar by way of their orthography or pronunciation.\r\n\r\n(ii) Beyond alleging a confusing similarity, Complainant did not produce anything indicating a relevant similarity between the trade marks and the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent contends that it has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Together with Mr Stiengart and Media Pioneer GMbH &Co.KG it intends to start further new related new services using trade marks related to the element \"pioneer\" in the company name Media Pioneer GMbH &Co.KG. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent asserts that:\r\n\r\n(i)\tIt has a legitimate interest to make use of the domain \"finance pioneer\" in the course of his future journalistic activities. \r\n\r\n(ii) The disputed domain name is a derivative of Media Pioneer's company name. The Respondent is in the course of preparing such activities involving the use of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n(iii)\tBoth the terms \"investment\" and \"pioneer\" are obviously generic, in spite of their alleged registration in combination as a trade mark in favour of the Complainant. The word \"finance\" is also a generic term. The Complainant cannot hinder the use of two generic terms by a third party by combining one of these terms with another generic term and having it registered as a trade mark.\r\n\r\n(iv)\tWhile the Complainant mentions that it uses the trade mark \"investment pioneer\" in class 36, the Respondent's intended use of the domain\/trade mark \"finance pioneer\" is for journalistic services under class 41.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent asserts that the disputed domain name has not been registered and used in bad faith. It says:\r\n\r\n(i) The fact that the disputed domain is not yet in use in the month following its registration does not indicate that it was not acquired bona fide. It is likely to some months until the Respondent will be in a position to produce consistent journalistic content under a variety of trade marks and domains including the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n(ii) Complainant had every possibility to register the dispute domain name on his behalf. Not having done so first and questioning Respondent's right to register the disputed domain name for himself represents an act of bad faith. \r\n\r\n(iii) The Respondent was unaware of Complainants activities and use\/alleged registration of the trade mark \"Investment Pioneer\".\r\n\r\n(iv) The Complainant has produced no information indicating any intention of Respondent to interfere with Complainant's activities. Furthermore, the Complainant and the Respondent operate the respective trade marks in two different trade mark classes. There is no reason to assume, and no such reason was produced by the Complainant, Respondent's bad faith in registering the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Respondent asserts that the Complainant failed in every possible way to meet the necessary standard of proof. The terms \"finance pioneer\" and \"investment pioneer\" are not confusingly similar. The parties to the dispute operate the respective trade marks in different classes: while the Complainant had \"investment pioneer\" registered in class 36, the Respondent intends to use \"finance pioneer\" in class 41. Furthermore, the Respondent's articles of association would not even allow Respondent to use the domain in class 36. \"Investment\", \"finance\" and \"pioneer\" are all generic terms which cannot be granted protection against their use by third parties. Respondent is making reasonable efforts to use the disputed domain name in the future. Complainant is acting in bad faith by not registering the disputed domain name on his behalf but claiming it now from the Respondent.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has not shown to the satisfaction of the Panel, that 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 failed show to the satisfaction of the Panel, that 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).  ",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has failed to show 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).  ",
    "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.",
    "decision": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Mrs Veronica  Bailey"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-10-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of international trademark number 1398148, AMUNDI PIONEER, registered 11 January 2018.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns, through its American subsidiary Pioneer Investment Management USA Inc., several trade marks for PIONEER that predate the registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns, through its subsidiary Amundi Pioneer Asset Management USA Inc., the domain names <pioneerfunds.com>, registered 21 January 1997 and <pioneerinvestments.com>, registered 7 May 2004.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "FINANCE-PIONEER.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}