The Complainant is an international financial services provider, primarily engaged in asset management. It has an established Internet presence and is the owner of the Internet domain name <amundi.com> which it registered on August 26, 2004, and which resolves to the Complainant’s principal website.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names are <amundim.info> and <amundim-trade.info>, both of which were registered on January 11, 2025. The former disputed domain name resolves to a website that impersonates the Complainant, by using the Complainant’s AMUNDI mark and name across the site while purporting to offer “Trading Solutions for Financial Markets”; whereas the latter disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website.<\/p>\n
Each of the disputed domain names was registered availing of a privacy service to conceal the identity of the registrant. In response to a request by the Centre for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding, the Register disclosed that the Respondent is the registrant of each.<\/p>\n
There is no information available about the Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Centre for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding. <\/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 names.<\/span><\/span><\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " The Complainant<\/span><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n The Complainant claims rights in the AMUNDI service mark based on its ownership of the international trademark registration described above and extensive use of the mark including on its website at <amundi.com> promoting its asset management services online. <\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that it has over 100 million retail, institutional and corporate clients, with more than €2 trillion of assets under management. These assertions are supported by public statements posted on the Complainant’s website.<\/p>\n Firstly, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the AMUNDI mark in which the Complainant has rights, arguing that they each contain the Complainant’s AMUNDI mark in its entirety; and in each case the addition of the letter “m” to the end of the AMUNDI mark is not sufficient to escape a finding that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.<\/p>\n The Complainant further argues that appending the letter “m” to the AMUNDI mark in each of the disputed domain names is an exercise in typosquatting.<\/p>\n Addressing each of the disputed domain names in turn, it is argued that the addition of the term “trade” in the domain name <amundim-trade.info> is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s AMUNDI mark. Therefore, it does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and the Complainant’s own Internet domain name <amundi.com>.<\/p>\n Citing the decision in Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin <\/em>WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, the Complainant submits 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 Policy.<\/p>\n The Complainant further submits that it is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension in a domain name at issue should be viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such disregarded: citing Gardline Surveys Ltd v. Domain Finance Ltd, <\/em>Forum Claim FA 153545, (\"The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.\").<\/p>\n Secondly. the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name for the following reasons:<\/p>\n The Complainant next alleges that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith, arguing that the Complainant’s AMUNDI mark is well-known. In this regard, the Complainant refers to a prior decision of a panel in AMUNDI v. John Crawford<\/em> CAC case n° 101803, (“The trademark of Complainant has been existing for a long time and is well-known. Respondent knew or should have known that the disputed domain name included Complainant’s trademark.”).<\/p>\n The Complainant adds that as a direct competitor of the Complainant, the Respondent could not have been unaware of the existence of the Complainant and its prior rights.<\/p>\n Therefore, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.<\/p>\n The Complainant adds that the misspelling of the trademark AMUNDI within each of the disputed domain names is intentionally designed to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; citing Microsoft Corporation v. Domain Registration Philippines <\/em>Forum Claim FA 877979, (\"In addition, Respondent’s misspelling of Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark in the <microssoft.com> domain name indicates that Respondent is typosquatting, which is a further indication of bad faith registration and uses pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).\").<\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the abovementioned exhibited screen capture, shows that the disputed domain name <amundim.info> resolves to a website offering trading solutions that compete with the trading services provided by the Complainant; and such use of the disputed domain name to divert Internet users searching for the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s competing website, and to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark for the Respondent’s commercial gain, constitutes bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.<\/p>\n Additionally, the Complainant argues that the abovementioned exhibited screen capture shows that the disputed domain name <amundim-trade.info> is inactive. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name <amundim-trade.info>, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that each of the disputed domain names are 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 either of the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/span><\/span><\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown each of the disputed domain names have been registered and are 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 the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/span><\/span><\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"James Bridgeman"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-02-15 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant uses the AMUNDI trademark in relation to the provision of asset management services and is the owner of the following trademark registration:<\/p>\n\n
\n