The Complainant is the first asset manager in Europe by asset management and operates 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.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on 21 June 2024 by an unknown registrant who did not provide any name, surname or organization name at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page displaying several links related to the Complainant's field of business.<\/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": "
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it, in summary:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A. Identity of Confusing Similarity<\/p>\n
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark AMUNDI as it incorporates it entirely. The addition of the term \"gestion\", meaning \"management\" in French, evokes the Complainant's activity and is not sufficient to avoid a confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant's mark.<\/p>\n
B. Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests<\/p>\n
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest. Once such a prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant affirms that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name and is not related to the Complainant's business. The Respondent is not an affiliated of the Complainant and the Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to use its trademark AMUNDI in any way, including as part of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the disputed domain name points to a parking page containing commercial links. Such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n
C. Bad Faith<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is being using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The AMUNDI trademark is well known. Besides, most results of a Google search on the terms \"amundi gestion\" refer to the Complainant. Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's mark.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its own website for its own commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n
Finally, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records, which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes.<\/p>\n
The Respondent accessed the online case file, but no administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>\n
<\/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": [ "Angelica Lodigiani" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-08-01 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark AMUNDI, protected with International registration No. 1024160, registered on September 24, 2009 for services in class 36, designating various jurisdictions worldwide. <\/p>\n
The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <amundi.com>, registered and used since August 26, 2006.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "amundi-gestion.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }