Amundiquantumfonds.com

The timeline behind amundiquantumfonds.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. Scarlett Moore Case No. D2026-1322 1. The Parties The Complainant is AMUNDI ASSET MANAGEMENT, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Scarlett Moore, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <amundiquantumfonds.com> is registered with CloudFlare, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 27, 2026. On March 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 27, 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 30, 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 30, 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 April 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 21, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 22, 2026. The Center appointed Tobias Malte Müller as the sole panelist in this matter on April 29, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background It results from the Complainant’s documented allegations, which have remained undisputed, that the Complainant is one of the leading asset managers by assets under management and has offices 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. The Complainant is the registered owner of the international trademark No. 1024160 AMUNDI registered on September 24, 2009 for services in class 36 and designating amongst others the United States, where the Respondent is located, according to the Registrar Verification Response. This international mark has duly been renewed and is in force. According to the Whois-extract submitted with the complaint, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 18, 2026. The language of the Registration Agreement is English. The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering investment strategy consulting services under the Complainant’s trademark AMUNDI in German language and which compete with the Complainant’s services. 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: (1) the disputed domain name entirely contains the Complainant’s trademark AMUNDI. The addition of the generic terms “quantum” and “fonds” (French for “funds”) is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion; (2) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name since the Whois information is not similar to the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by him in any way to use the trademark AMUNDI. The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer services in direct competition with the Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name that resolves to a competing webpage is not a bona fide offering of goods or services; (3) as a direct competitor of the Complainant, the Respondent should have known the Complainant at the time of the registration. Given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent uses 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 by offering competing services. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires a complainant to prove each of the following three elements in order to obtain an order that each disputed domain name be transferred or cancelled: (i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel will therefore proceed to analyse whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied. 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 AMUNDI for the purposes of the Policy, WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the entirety of this mark is reproduced and recognizable within the disputed domain name, being placed at its beginning. 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, “quantum” and “fonds”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms 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 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 disputed domain name resolves to a website offering investment strategy consulting services under the Complainant’s page 4 trademark AMUNDI in German language and which compete with the Complainant’s services. The Panel considers this use neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(i) and (iii) of the Policy. In particular, the Complainant has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to use any of its trademarks in any way. Furthermore, the Panel does not dispose of any elements that could lead the Panel to the conclusion that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has acquired trademark rights pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. 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 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. One of these circumstances is that the Respondent, by using the disputed domain names, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). In the present case, the Panel notes that according to the Complainant’s documented allegations, the disputed domain name resolves to a website allegedly offering investment strategy consulting services in German language and which compete with the Complainant’s services. For the Panel, it is therefore evident that the Respondent positively knew the Complainant’s trademark and business. Consequently, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent also knew that the disputed domain name included the Complainant’s trademark when it registered it. In this regard, further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name’s registration and use confirm the findings that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith: (1) the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark which has existed for many years and which is the dominant element of the Complainant’s company name; (2) the nature of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark identically and with the addition of at least one term, namely “fonds”, which is directly applicable to the Complainant’s business. In fact, the term “fonds” means “funds” not only in French but also in German language, the language of the website, to which the disputed domain name resolves; (3) the content of the website to which the disputed domain name directs, relating to the Complainant and its business and purportedly offering investment strategy consulting services under the Complainant’s trademark; (4) a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no response for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain names; and page 5 (5) the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use. 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 <amundiquantumfonds.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Tobias Malte Müller/ Tobias Malte Müller Sole Panelist Date: May 13, 2026

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