{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102815",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-12-12 13:01:47",
    "domain_names": [
        "amundj.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "AMUNDI ASSET MANAGEMENT"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Oznet Cyber Security"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a European leading asset manager with offices in 37 countries in Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and America. It manages €1,425 billion in assets for over 100 million retail, institutional and corporate clients.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <amundj.com> was registered on December 05, 2019 and is pointed to a web page requesting login information and displaying in the heading the wording “ethical phishing”.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.\r\n",
    "no_response_filed": "A. COMPLAINANT\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the disputed domain name <amunj.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark AMUNDI as it contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark AMUNDI (i.e. the substitution of the “i” by the “j”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that this is a clear case of “typosquatting” and that, as previous panels have found, a slight variation in the spelling does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. \r\n\r\nWith reference to rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, the Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests since it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant underlines that the Respondent is in no way related to the Complainant, is not affiliated or in any way authorized by the Complainant in any way to use the trademark AMUNDI and does not carry out any activity for, or have any business with, the Respondent.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also claims that the fact that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark AMUNDI only serves to further prove that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name also points to an “ethical phishing” page, and is used to redirect the Complainant’s clients to the Respondent’s web site with the intent to obtain personal information from such clients, through the use of a registration form.   \r\n\r\nThe Complainant concludes with reference to the issue of the rights or legitimate interest that, the Respondent has in no way any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n\r\nWith reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainant indicates that, considering the renown of its trademark AMUNDI and the distinctiveness of its trademark and reputation, the Respondent knew or should have known the Complainant at the time of registering the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant emphasizes that the Respondent must also have been well aware of the Complainant at the moment of registering the disputed domain name, since it deliberately chose to include a typo squatted version of the Complainant’s trademark.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also asserts that, as the Respondent’s web site redirects to an “ethical phishing” page, by registering the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark AMUNDI, the Respondent’s aim was to attract Internet users to its web site or other online location, for commercial gain, thus creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its web site, location or product or service on its web site or location.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant thus concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nB. RESPONDENT.\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\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).",
    "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": [
        "Luca Barbero"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-02-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner, inter alia, of the following trademark registration consisting of or comprising AMUNDI:\r\n\r\nInternational Trademark registration No. 1024160 for AMUNDI (word mark), registered on September 24, 2009, in class 36.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of several domain names including the trademark AMUNDI, such as the domain name <amundi.com>, registered on August 26, 2004.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "AMUNDJ.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}