{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102298",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-01-11 10:01:30",
    "domain_names": [
        "voamundi.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "AMUNDI ASSET MANAGEMENT"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Patricia Costa"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nPast panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. Please see for instance:\r\n\r\n- FORUM Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii).”)\r\n\r\n- FORUM Case No. FA 699652, The Braun Corporation v. Wayne Loney\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that it is not legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, neither of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor is commonly known under the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nPlease see FORUM Case No. 1785596, King Ranch IP, LLC v. E Miller (“Additionally, Respondent makes no material demonstrable preparations to use the <kingranchbbq.com> domain name. The domain name simply links to a parking page. Holding a confusingly similar domain name inactively, as does Respondent, is not indicative of any bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy  paragraph 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii).”).\r\n\r\nThe incorporation of a well-known trade mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. This Panel refers to the decision of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO (Case No. D2000-0003), which was summarised by the panel in Soda LLC v. SIMPLEDOLLAR.COM (Case No. D2016-0038) as follows: \"The UDRP panel in the [Telstra] decision... found that passive holding of a domain name can constitute use in bad faith… in the present case, no positive action was being taken by the respondent in relation to the domain name and the panel concluded that such non-use constituted bad faith.\"",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any pending or decided legal proceedings that are related to the disputed domain name.  ",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has not, 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 not, 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 not, 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": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Carrie Shang"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-02-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has proved to be owner of the International word trademark \"AMUNDI\", registered on September 24, 2009 in the Int. class (Nice Classification) 36, based on the French trademark no. 093654657 filed on June 4, 2009, designating under the Madrid Protocol Australia, Bahrein, the EU, Japan, Republic of Korea, Norway, Singapore, Turkey, the US, Switzerland, China, Egypt, Liechtenstein, Morocco, Monaco, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Vietnam.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "VOAMUNDI.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}