Amun-di-finance.com

The timeline behind amun-di-finance.com

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. Sandra ALLO Case No. D2026-0866 1. The Parties The Complainant is Amundi Asset Management, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Sandra ALLO, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <amun-di-finance.com> is registered with Register SPA (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 27, 2026. On February 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 2, 2026, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 2, 2026, 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 3, 2026. 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 9, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 29, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 31, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Michel Vivant as the sole panelist in this matter on April 8, 2026. 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, Amundi Asset Management, is an important asset manager with a significant portfolio of clients in Europe, Asia, Middle East and Americas. The Complainant is the owner of the International Trademark No. 1024160 AMUNDI registered since September 24, 2009. It is also the owner of domain names including the trademark AMUNDI. According to the WhoIs database, the Respondent appeared only as “REDACTED FOR PRIVACY”. The disputed domain name was registered on February 24, 2026 and resolves to a blank page. 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. The Complainant, reminding that the fact that a domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP, observes that the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark AMUNDI in its entirety. He adds that the addition of a hyphen and the term “finance” is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion, that it does not change the “overall impression”. He also notes that the Complainant’s rights over the term “AMUNDI” have been confirmed by previous panels. So, for the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Secondly, the Complainant reminds that, according to the decisions of the UDRP panels, the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Quoting different past cases, he asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with it nor authorized by it in any way to use the trademark AMUNDI. Moreover, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolves to a blank page. Consequently, it considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant contends that the trademark AMUNDI is well known, as that has been recognized in previous cases. Moreover, for the Complainant, the addition of the term “finance” cannot be coincidental, as it directly refers to the Complainant’s activities. So, it considers that, taking into account the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation, “it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks”. It underlines that the disputed domain name gives access to a blank page and contends that “the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use” as that has been judged previously by some panels. It notes also that “the disputed domain name has been set up with [Mail Exhange (‘MX’)] records”. So, on these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, even if the mark is reproduced in a fragmented manner: “a-mundi” and not AMUNDI. Indeed, despite this fragmentation, it is undeniably an integral reproduction. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here “finance”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. 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 that 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 with the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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. The disputed domain name resolved to a blank page at the time of filing of the Complaint, as shown by the evidence provided by the Complainant, and currently resolves to a page displaying the phrase “Are you interested in this domain name?” in French. The Panel notes that the Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name itself combines the Complainant’s trademark with a term descriptive of it services, which affirms that the Respondent more likely than not intended to take page 4 unfair advantage of the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant as to the origin or affiliation of the website. 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. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel notes that, as the Complainant put that forward, the Complainant is well known. Noting the composition of the disputed domain name, it is unlikely that the Respondent – who reportedly resides in France, where the Complainant is established - could seriously claim that he was not aware of the trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Consequently, it is clear that he proceeded deliberately with its registration, that is to say in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.2. Considering the cases of “passive holding”, as such in the present case, the panels have found that the non- use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, and lack of response, and finds that in the circumstances of this case 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 <amun-di-finance.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Michel Vivant/ Michel Vivant Sole Panelist Date: April 17, 2026

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