Amundi Asset Management v Jerry Anderson

WIPO Case No. DCO2023-0048

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Amundi Asset Management v. Jerry Anderson

Case No. DCO2023-0048

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Jerry Anderson, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <amundi-tc.co> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 10, 2023. On May 10, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 10, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the 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 May 10, 2023 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 May 15, 2023.

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 May 19, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 8, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 11, 2023.

The Center appointed Jeremy Speres as the sole panelist in this matter on June 14, 2023. 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, trading under the AMUNDI trade mark, is a leading European asset manager with offices in Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle-East and the Americas, with over 100 million retail, institutional and corporate clients. The Complainant’s AMUNDI trade mark has been recognised as being well-known by prior UDRP panels (see e.g. Amundi Asset Management v. Laurent Guerson, WIPO Case No. D2022-0730).

The Complainant owns various AMUNDI-incorporating domain names, including its primary domain name
<amundi.com>. The Complainant owns numerous trade mark registrations around the word for its trade
mark, including International Trade Mark Registration No. 1024160 AMUNDI in class 36, designating the
Respondent’s country of the United States, amongst others, with registration date September 24, 2009.

The Domain Name was registered on May 5, 2023 and resolves to a website featuring pay-per-click (“PPC”) advertisements for investment and wealth management firms.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its well-known AMUNDI mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith given that it has been used for PPC advertisements for the Respondent’s commercial gain, taking advantage of the Complainant’s reputation to attract users to competing services.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant’s registered and well-known mark is wholly contained within the Domain Name as its first
element with the addition of the term “tc” preceded by a hyphen. Where the trade mark is recognisable
within the disputed domain name (as in this case), the addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of
confusing similarity (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at section 1.8). The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i)

of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant’s unrebutted evidence establishes that its mark was registered and well-known for many
years prior to registration of the Domain Name. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s mark and the Complainant has certified that the Domain Name is unauthorised by it.

Use of a domain name to host PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalise on the reputation of the complainant’s mark, as in this case (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.9). There is no evidence that any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy pertain, nor any others which may confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. The Complainant has

satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy by virtue of having made out an unrebutted prima facie case (WIPO
Overview 3.0 at section 2.1).

page 3

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

UDRP panels have consistently found that the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trade mark can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0 at sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.1).

The Domain Name has been used to advertise services competitive with those of the Complainant, which is
a clear indicator of targeting for commercial gain under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Dr. Martens
International Trading GmbH, Dr. Maertens Marketing GmbH v. Private Whois Service, WIPO Case No.
D2011-1753. Although the advertisements may be served programmatically by a third party, the
Respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for them (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.5).

The Panel has independently established that the Domain Name is listed for sale on a prominent domain name marketplace for USD 599, which is likely, without evidence from the Respondent to the contrary, in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses relating directly to the Domain Name. Thus, paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy is applicable.

The Panel has also independently established that the Respondent has been involved, as the unsuccessful respondent, in at least two prior UDRP cases:

- Freistaat Bayern v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Jerry Anderson, 3x Domains, WIPO
Case No. D2015-2122

- Sodexo v. Jerry Anderson, WIPO Case No. DCO2023-0023

The Respondent would appear to have a history of cybersquatting.

The Panel draws an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to take part in the present proceeding where an explanation is certainly called for (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 4.3).

The Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Domain Name, <amundi-tc.co>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/Jeremy Speres/
Jeremy Speres
Sole Panelist
Date: June 28, 2023