WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Amundi Asset Management v. Bonnie faber

Case No. D2022-0947

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Amundi Asset Management, France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is Bonnie faber, Germany.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <particulier-amundi-ee.com> is registered with PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 17, 2022. On March 17, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 17, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 18, 2022 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 18, 2022.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 18, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 7, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 8, 2022.

The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on April 11, 2022. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a major asset manager with more than 2 trillion in assets under management. It has offices in 36 countries and over 100 million clients.

The Complainant owns the International trademark AMUNDI designating numerous countries (Registration No. 1024160 in International Class 36, registered on September 24, 2009).

The Complainant also holds several domain names, including the domain name <amundi.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 15, 2022 and resolves to a login page copying the Complainant’s official customer access.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends as follows:

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AMUNDI trademark in which the Complainant has rights, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the word “particulier” (meaning “private individual” in English) and of the abbreviation “ee” (standing in French for “épargne enterprise”, meaning in English “business savings”) is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity, but rather increases the risk of confusion because it refers to the Complainant’s field of activities.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not been licensed or authorized by the Complainant to use this trademark. The disputed domain name resolves to a login page copying the Complainant’s official customer access and could thus be used to collect information of the Complainant’s clients. Therefore, there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use, or demonstrable preparation to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The trademark AMUNDI has been extensively used to identify the Complainant and its services worldwide. The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith because it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent had knowledge of both the Complainant and its well-known trademark AMUNDI at the time it registered the disputed domain name. Moreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a login page copying the Complainant’s official customer access. Therefore, the Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith because it 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.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant owns trademark registrations for its AMUNDI trademark.

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates the AMUNDI trademark in its entirety. The addition of the word “particulier” and of the abbreviation “ee” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8.

For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark AMUNDI.

The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant states it has not authorized the Respondent to use the trademark AMUNDI. The Panel does not see any contrary evidence from the record. Moreover, the Respondent has shown that the disputed domain name resolves to a login page copying the Complainant’s official customer access, which could be used to fraudulently collect information of the Complainant’s clients and therefore does not constitute a bona fide offering of services.

In the view of the Panel, the Complainant has succeeded in raising a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. For its part, the Respondent failed to provide any explanations as to any rights or legitimate interests. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name, comprising the Complainant’s trademark and the term “particulier” (meaning “private individual”) and the abbreviation “ee” (standing for “business savings” in French) carries a risk of implied affiliation. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

The second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that its AMUNDI trademark has been extensively used and is well known.

In the view of the Panel, considering in particular the addition of the abbreviation “ee” (standing for “business savings” in French) which refers to the Complainant’s field of activities, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s well-known trademark. In the circumstances of this case, this is evidence of registration in bad faith.

The disputed domain name resolves to a login page copying the Complainant’s official customer access. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith because it 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 could fraudulently collect personal information through this login, namely credentials. Under the circumstances of this case, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could make any good faith use of the disputed domain name.

The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <particulier-amundi-ee.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: April 20, 2022