{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102282", "time_of_filling": "2019-01-02 09:36:02", "domain_names": [ "amundidigitalassets.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "AMUNDI ASSET MANAGEMENT" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (laurent Becker)", "respondent": [ "Joshua Johnson" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The disputed domain name was registered on 19 December 2018. \r\n\r\nThe domain is currently not in use. The domain is currently a so called \"parked domain\", containing the following message: \"Welcome to amundidigitalassets.com. This Web page is parked FREE, courtesy of GoDaddy. Find similar domains.\"", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant (\"AMUNDI ASSET MANAGEMENT\") is a subsidiary of the French companies \"Crédit Agricole\" and \"Société Générale\". The Complainant claims to rank in the global top 10 of asset management companies, with more than 100 million customers worldwide, and offices in 37 countries in Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle-East and the Americas. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the international trademark n°1024160 AMUNDI, registered since 24 September 2009.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns the domain name . \r\n\r\n1.The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademarks AMUNDI and to its domain name. The Complainant argues that the addition of the terms “DIGITAL ASSETS” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark AMUNDI, since it does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. On the contrary, the addition of the terms “DIGITAL ASSETS” increases the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s denomination and activity, as the Complainant is specialised in asset management. Other UDRP decisions have recognised that the addition of a generic term associated to a trademark does not create a new or different right to the mark or diminish confusing similarity. The Complainant also refers to prior cases regarding the Complainant‘s rights over the term “AMUNDI”.\r\n\r\n2. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, but as “Joshua Johnson”. Given the fact that the Whois information of the Respondent is not similar to the disputed domain name, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent dit not acquire any rights to the disputed domain name. The Complainant confirms that the Respondent is not affiliated or related in any way to the Complainant, and was not authorised or licensed by the Complainant to use its trademark \"AMUNDI\" or register the domain name. The Complainant emphasises that no use has been made of the disputed domain name since its registration. The Complainant contends that there are no reasons to believe that the Respondent has any demonstrable plan to effectively use the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n3. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant claims that its trademark \"AMUNDI\" is well­known. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks. The Complainant emphasises that the disputed domain name has been inactive since its registration, as the disputed domain name redirects to a Registrar parking page. The Complainant furthermore claims that the incorporation of its well-known mark into the disputed domain name, coupled with an inactive website, is evidence of bad faith registration and use. \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\n1. The Respondent contends that the disputed domain name is neither identical nor confusingly similar to the marks of the Complainant. The Respondent states that the word \"Amundi\", as referenced in is not by itself representative of more than one third of the total amount of characters within the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent contends that the Complainant is not active in the market of \"digital assets\" such as crypto currencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum. The Respondent concludes: \"thus the complainants regard for this nascent term is especially confusing\". \r\n\r\n2. The Respondent also contends that it has rights and\/or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent claims that, since only little time (i.e., 3 weeks and 5 days) has passed between the registration of the disputed domain name and the writing of its response in the current ADR proceeding, he has not been given a sufficient time frame to design and develop his website. The Respondent emphasises that he intends to continue developing a site for the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not further elaborate on this intended use. \r\n\r\n3. The Respondent did not further elaborate on the issue of bad faith. ", "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). ", "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). ", "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": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Bart Van Besien" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-02-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of an international word trademark registration n°1024160 “AMUNDI”, registered on 24 September 2009 for various designated countries. The Complainant also owns the domain name . ", "decision_domains": { "AMUNDIDIGITALASSETS.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }