{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105784",
    "time_of_filling": "2023-09-15 10:24:46",
    "domain_names": [
        "amundi-gruppe.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "AMUNDI ASSET MANAGEMENT"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "JULE RODRIGUE"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant is a well-recognized European assets manager company with offices in Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle-East and the Americas. The Complainant has over 100 million retail, institutional and corporate clients, and ranks in the top 10 globally.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Apart from the AMUNDI International Trademark, the Complainant also owns the domain name &lt;amundi.com&gt;, registered and used since August 26, 2004.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">According to the evidence submitted before the Panel, the disputed domain name &lt;<strong>amundi-gruppe.com<\/strong>&gt; was registered on <strong>September 10, 2023, <\/strong>and on September 12, 2023 resolved to a parking page. By the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p><strong>Response<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Respondent did not submit its Response replying to Complainant's contentions.<\/p>\n<p><u>Complainant Contentions<\/u>:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name &lt;amundi-gruppe.com&gt; is confusingly similar to the trademark AMUNDI; that the disputed domain name contains the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark AMUNDI in its entirety plus the addition of the term &ldquo;GRUPPE&rdquo;, which means &ldquo;group&rdquo; in German, which is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion, as it is well-established that &ldquo;a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant&rsquo;s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP&rdquo;, citing <em> Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2003-0888.<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<p>That the Complainant&rsquo;s rights over the term &ldquo;AMUNDI&rdquo; have been confirmed by previous panels, as in Amundi Asset Management v. Domain Management, CAC-UDRP Case No. 104650; Amundi Asset Management v. Laurent Guerson, WIPO Case No. D2022-0730; Amundi Asset Management v. Jean Ren&eacute;, WIPO Case No. D2019-1950.<\/p>\n<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name due to the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name; that previous 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, citing <em>Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group<\/em>, NAF Case No. FA 1781783; <em>The Braun Corporation v. Wayne Loney<\/em>, NAF Case No. FA 699652.<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">That the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant&rsquo;s business; nor affiliated or authorized in any way to use the trademark AMUNDI; that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page, and that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name, which confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.&nbsp;<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">That given AMUNDI&rsquo;s distinctiveness, the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark reputation, and since it is a well-known Trademark, the Respondent knew of should have known that the disputed domain name included Complainant&rsquo;s trademark; that the additional word &ldquo;gruppe&rdquo; refers to the Complainant&rsquo;s structure; that an Internet search of the denomination &ldquo;Amundi Gruppe&rdquo;, displays results related to the Complainant and its subsidiaries.<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">That since the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page, the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, making impossible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate; that as prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use, citing <em>Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, <\/em>WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; <em>CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2000-0400.<\/li>\n<\/ul>",
    "rights": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is 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": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">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": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">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": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">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": [
        "María Alejandra López García"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-10-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant is a well-recognized European assets manager company with offices in Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle-East and the Americas.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant owns the following Trademark:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<p>International trademark registration No. 1024160 AMUNDI registered on September 24, 2009, in force until September 24, 2029, previously registered in France, as the country of origin, designating Australia, Bahrain, European Union, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Norway, Singapore, T&uuml;rkiye, USA, Switzerland, China, Egypt, Liechtenstein, Morocco, Monaco, Russian Federation and Ukraine at al., in IC 36 for insurance, consultancy, financial, banking operations, real state affairs, property management services et al.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The disputed domain name &lt;<strong>amundi-gruppe.com<\/strong>&gt; was registered on <strong>September 10, 2023<\/strong> and by the time of this Decision resolves to an inactive website.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "amundi-gruppe.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}