Amundi Asset Management v Vladimir Volf

WIPO Case No. D2024-2592

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Amundi Asset Management v. Vladimir Volf

Case No. D2024-2592

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Vladimir Volf, Russian Federation.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <amundi.site> is registered with REG.RU LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June
28, 2024. On July 1, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification
in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 2, 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 (Private Person) and contact information in the Complaint. The
Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 4, 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 July 5, 2024

On July 4, 2024 the Center informed the parties in Russian and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Russian. On July 5, 2024, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission.

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 in Russian and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 17, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 6, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any

page 2

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 21, 2024.

The Center appointed Clark W. Lackert as the sole panelist in this matter on August 23, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is Europe’s number one asset manager by assets under management and has offices in Europe, Asia-Pacific, the Middle East and the Americas using its company trademark AMUNDI. With over 100 million retail, institutional and corporate clients, the Complainant ranks in the top 10 globally.

The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for its trademark AMUNDI including:

Jurisdictions	Registration Number	Registration Date
France	3654657	June 4, 2009
International Registration – designating China,	1024160	September 24, 2009
European Union, Japan, Russian Federation, jurisdictions.

The Complainant registered its domain name <amundi.com> on August 26, 2004 and the disputed domain name was registered on June 27, 2024. The Complainant has provided evidence showing that the disputed domain name redirected to the Registrar’s parked page wherein it was offered for sale for RUB 4,999.

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 disputed domain name <amundi.site> is identical to the Complainant’s trademark AMUNDI. Moreover, the trademark is contained without addition or deletion. Besides, it is well established that Top-Level Domains such as “.site” may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy when comparing disputed domain names and trademark. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”, section 1.11 (“The applicable Top Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.”).

The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s

trademark AMUNDI, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.

The Complainant contends that its trademark AMUNDI is used and registered worldwide. The Complainant is Europe’s number one asset manager by assets under management and ranks in the top 10 globally. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark AMUNDI. Furthermore, a previous panel confirmed the notoriety of the trademark AMUNDI. Amundi Asset Management v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation / daniel, clark, WIPO Case No. D2019-1335, (“the Complainant’s AMUNDI trade mark is well

known, and has been in use since at least 2009”). Additionally, the disputed domain name is being offered
for sale for RUB 4,999 by the Respondent. Consequently, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s
trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain
name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark, constituting opportunistic bad faith.

page 3

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Procedural Issue – Language of the Proceeding

According to the information provided by the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Russian. Under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.

The Complainant submitted its Complaint in English, and requests the proceeding to be held in English. The Center has sent all its relevant email communications to the Respondent in both English and Russian, and has invited the Respondent to express his views on the language of the proceeding. The Respondent has not responded to this invitation and has thus not objected to the Complainant’s request that the proceeding be held in English. Additionally, the disputed domain name wholly incorporates only the Complainant’s trademark.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.5.1).

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.

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 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

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

page 4

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 defaulted and 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

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial
gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark in violation of
paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Moreover, the registration of a domain name that copies a widely known
mark indicates an intent to target that mark to promote misdirection of Internet traffic, evidence of bad faith.
See, e.g., The Dow Chemical Company v. dowchemical [email protected] +86.7508126859, WIPO
Case No. D2008-1078 (finding <dowaychemical.com> registered in bad faith in view of the “widely known
trademarks” of the complainant); see also IDR Solutions Ltd. v. Whois Privacy Corp., WIPO Case No.
D2016-2156 (evidence of third party recognition of complainant’s JPEDAL mark supported conclusion that
<jpedal.org> was registered in bad faith). As WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4 states: “Panels have
consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar
(particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous
or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.”
Moreover, the disputed domain name which is identical to the Complainant’s trademark is listed for sale on a
domain name sales website which has been found to be evidence of bad faith. See, e.g., Turner Network
Television, Inc. v. Expired Domain Resource****Maybe For Sale on Dynadot Marketplace**** c/o Dynadot,

WIPO Case No. D2018-1036.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s well known trademark, finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name (including the redirection to the Registrar’s parking page) does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

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.site> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Clark W. Lackert/
Clark W. Lackert
Sole Panelist
Date: September 6, 2024