The Complainant is the largest Europe’s asset manager, having offices in Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle East and the Americas. With over 100 million retail, institutional and corporate clients, the Complainant ranks in top 10 globally.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of several domain names including “AMUNDI” trademark, such as, the domain name <amundi.com>, registered and used since August 26, 2004.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <amundiesg.com> (hereinafter “disputed domain name”) was registered on October 7, 2022 and resolves to a parking page.<\/p>\n
According to the Registrar verification, the Respondent is ‘lok’. The Respondent’s provided address as being at Honk Kong.<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark and so it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of acronym “ESG” (which stands for “environmental, social and governance”) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark “AMUNDI”. The Complainant states that it is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP” (WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin).<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.com” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant states that it is well-established that the TLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such disregarded. (Forum Case No. FA 153545, Gardline Surveys Ltd v. Domain Finance Ltd.).<\/p>\n
The Complainant adds that Its rights over the term “AMUNDI” have been confirmed by previous panels:<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. The Complainant adds that past panel 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 (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>; Forum Case No. FA 699652, The Braun Corporation v. Wayne Loney).<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Finally, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant adds that past panels have found that it is not bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use at a confusingly similar domain name (Forum Case No. FA 970871, Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend; WIPO Case No. D2007-1695, Mayflower Transit LLC v. Domains by Proxy Inc.\/Yariv Moshe).<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Its trademark and domain names associated. The Complainant contends that Its trademark is well-known (CAC case No. 101803, AMUNDI v. John Crawford). The Complainant adds that the addition of the acronym “ESG” cannot be coincidental, as ESG commitments are integrated in the Complainant's strategy.<\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark (WIPO Case No. D2004-0673, Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group Inc).<\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. By that the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website, which is supposed to be evidence of bad faith (WIPO Case No. D2018-0497, StudioCanal v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC \/ Sudjam Admin, Sudjam LLC).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n No administratively Complaint Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"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 UDRP).<\/p>",
"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 UDRP).<\/p>",
"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 UDRP).<\/p>",
"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.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Radim Charvát"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2022-12-01 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of trademark registration:<\/p>\n The Complainant proved its ownership of the given trademark registration by the submitted extract from the Register.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"amundiesg.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n