Amundi.bond

The timeline behind amundi.bond

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Amundi Asset Management v. Emily Schwarz Case No. D2024-0663 1. The Parties The Complainant is Amundi Asset Management, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Emily Schwarz, United Arab Emirates. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <amundi.bond> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 13, 2024. On February 13, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 14, 2024, 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 (Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 14, 2024, 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 February 14, 2024. 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 February 21, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 12, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 13, 2024. The Center appointed Zoltán Takács as the sole panelist in this matter on March 15, 2024. 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a French asset management company with offices in Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle-East ,and the Americas. With over 100 million retail, institutional, and corporate clients the Complainant ranks among the biggest investment managers in the world. The Complainant is owner of the International Trademark Registration No. 1024160 for the word mark AMUNDI registered since September 24, 2009, for various financial services. The Complainant owns the domain name <amundi.com> which was registered on August 26, 2004, and resolves to its corporate website. The disputed domain name was registered on February 12, 2024, and at the time of filing of the Complaint it resolved to the Registrar’s parking page. Currently the disputed domain name does not resolve to any website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: - the disputed domain name is identical to its AMUNDI trademark; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it is unable to rely on any of the circumstances set out in paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii), or (iii) of the Policy; - the Respondent’s registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of its AMUNDI mark which constitutes opportunistic bad faith. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed on the complaint, namely that: (i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. page 3 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant).If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. As mentioned above, at the time of filing of the Complaint the disputed domain name was “parked” with the Registrar and it appears that it has never been used actively. However, this cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name and passive holding in itself does not establish any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Moreover, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark, which cannot constitute fair use as it suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. page 4 In the present case that Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that its distinctive AMUNDI trademark is, and has been for many years well and widely known in the financial service industry (see Amundi Asset Management v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation / daniel, clark, WIPO Case No. D2019-1335). The registration of the disputed domain name which is identical to the Complainant’s trademark took years after the Complainant’s registration and use of the AMUNDI trademark. These circumstances, coupled with the fact that the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in the disputed domain name corresponds to the Complainant’s area of business and the Respondent’s email address used in registration of the disputed domain name contains the term “financial”, an explicit reference to the Complainant’s field of business convince the Panel that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s business and trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name which it obtained in order to target its AMUNDI mark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. The fact that the disputed domain name was “parked” with the Registrar and it appears that it has never been used actively does not prevent a finding of bad faith when considering the totality of the circumstances. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, the Respondent’s failure to submit a response and that any good faith use to which the inherently misleading disputed domain name may be put appears to be implausible. The Panel finds that in these circumstances the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 <amundi.bond> be transferred to the Complainant. /Zoltán Takács/ Zoltán Takács Sole Panelist Date: March 27, 2024

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.