{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105345", "time_of_filling": "2023-04-12 09:40:36", "domain_names": [ "ee-epargnant-amundi.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "AMUNDI ASSET MANAGEMENT" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "paulette axell" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is Europe's number one asset manager by assets under management and has offices in Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle-East and the Americas. With over 100 million retail, institutional and corporate clients, the Complainant ranks in the top 10 globally.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant is also the owner of domain names including the trademark “AMUNDI”, such as the domain names <amundi.com>, registered and used since 26 August 2004, and <amundi-ee.com>, registered and used since 24 September 2009.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 4 April 2023 and resolves to a login page copying the Complainant’s official customer access site at <https:\/\/epargnant.amundi-ee.com\/#\/connexion>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent has not filed a Response.<\/span><\/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": "

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>\n

The Complainant made the following contentions:<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark “AMUNDI”. Indeed, the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark “AMUNDI” in its entirety.<\/span><\/p>\n

The addition of the term “EPARGNANT” (meaning “SAVER”) and the abbreviation “EE” (for “EPARGNE ENTREPRISE”, meaning “COMPANY SAVINGS”) is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion. On the contrary, the addition of these terms worsens the likelihood of confusion, as they directly refer to the Complainant’s customer official access at <https:\/\/epargnant.amundi-ee.com\/#\/connexion>.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is also well established that the TLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant then points to previous UDRP cases where panels confirmed rights over the term “AMUNDI”, in particular WIPO Case No. D2022-1931 <epargneamundi-ee.com>; WIPO Case No. D2022-0730 <amundi-europe.com>; WIPO Case No. D2019-1950 <amundi-invest.com>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant further argues that it has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use the trademark “AMUNDI”. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name resolves to a login page copying the Complainant’s official customer access. This page could be used in order to collect personal information of the Complainant’s clients. Thus, the Respondent’s website cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of services or fair use, since the websites can mislead the consumers into believing that they are accessing the Complainant’s website. The Complaint refers to previous UDRP case law, where the panel concluded that where the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, it is a blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

Turning to the bad faith argument, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark “AMUNDI” and the associated domain names. The Complainant contends the trademark “AMUNDI” is well-known, as already accepted by previous panels (eg. WIPO Case No. D2019-1335). The Complainant asserts that its trademark “AMUNDI” is used worldwide given that the Complainant is present in more than 30 countries, and ranks in the top 10 globally in asset manager by assets under management.<\/span><\/p>\n

Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks. The Complainant points out that the disputed domain name resolves to a login page copying the Complainant’s official customer access. By using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). Besides, the Respondent can collect personal information through these websites, namely credentials. The Complainant mentions that past panels concluded that using a domain name in such a way is a bad faith use (Forum Case No. 1770729 and Forum Case No. 1760987).<\/span><\/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 Policy).<\/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 Policy).<\/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 Policy).<\/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": [ "Vojtěch Chloupek" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-05-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the international trademark No. 1024160 registered since 24 September 2009 for the word mark “AMUNDI” in class 36, and designated for numerous countries.<\/span><\/div>", "decision_domains": { "ee-epargnant-amundi.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }