About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Amundi Asset Management v. Ai Kirishima, Personal

Case No. D2021-2866

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Ai Kirishima, Personal, Japan.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <amundi.tokyo> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount-Domain.com and Onamae.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 31, 2021. On September 1, 2021 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 2, 2021, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 17, 2021 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 in English on September 20, 2021.

On September 17, 2021, the Center transmitted an email in English and Japanese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on September 20, 2021. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

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 in English and Japanese, and the proceedings commenced on September 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 14, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 22, 2021.

The Center appointed Haig Oghigian as the sole panelist in this matter on November 10, 2021. 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 a French asset management company. The Complainant maintains 36 offices in the Americas, Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle-East.

The Complainant is the owner of international trademark number 1024160 for AMUNDI, registered on September 24, 2009, designating multiple jurisdictions including Japan.

The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <amundi.com>, registered and used since August 26, 2004.

The Domain Name, <amundi.tokyo>, is inactive and was registered on August 29, 2021.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant says the Domain Name <amundi.tokyo> is identical to its trademark and branded services under the AMUNDI mark. The Complainant says the inclusion of the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.tokyo” does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant, its marks and its associated domain names.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. It states that it granted no license or authorization to the Respondent for use of the AMUNDI mark, and that the Domain Name is inactive, which demonstrates the absence of legitimate interest.

Further, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith. It says that its AMUNDI trademark is used worldwide, the notoriety of which has been confirmed by previous panels. The Complainant says that given the distinctiveness of its mark, it is reasonable to conclude the Respondent registered the Domain Name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and rights. It says this is evidence of opportunistic bad faith. Further, as the Domain Name is inactive, the Complainant says it is not possible to conceive of a plausible actual or contemplated use that would be legitimate.

Accordingly, it seeks transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

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 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 that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the Domain Name should be transferred:

(i) the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(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.

6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding

The Registrar confirmed that the language of the Registration Agreement of the Domain Name is Japanese. The Complainant sets forth a number of arguments as to why the proceeding should be held in English. The Respondent did not comment on the Complainant’s request.

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel determines that the language of the proceeding should be English.

6.2. Substantive Issues

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name <amundi.tokyo> incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark. It is well established that the specific TLD of a domain name such as “.tokyo” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar: see F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A., WIPO Case No. D2006-0451.

Putting aside the “.tokyo” TLD, all that remains of the Domain Name is the AMUNDI trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s AMUNDI trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. However, if the Complainant shows a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests, and the Respondent fails to rebut such prima facie case, then the Respondent may lack a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.

The Complainant confirms that it is not affiliated with the Respondent, nor has it granted either a license or authorization to use its AMUNDI trademark, including applying for registration of domain names. Further, the Complainant confirms it is not engaged in any business with the Respondent.

The Domain Name is inactive. The Domain Name was registered in 2021, several years after the Complainant’s registration of the AMUNDI mark, as well as its <amundi.com> domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name which wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.

The Respondent has not provided evidence of the circumstances specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or any other circumstances giving rise to a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. There is no evidence of any preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with any legitimate noncommercial activities or fair use.

The prima face case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name has not been rebutted by the Respondent. For this reason and as set out under Part C below, the Panel finds that the Complaint also succeeds under this element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent has not participated in these proceedings, and therefore has not contested the Complainant’s allegations with regard to the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith.

The Domain Name was registered on August 29, 2021, several years after the Complainant’s international trademark registration for the AMUNDI mark in 2009. The Complainant also provided evidence, which the Panel accepts, that the AMUNDI mark is highly distinctive as a consequence of use in numerous countries. The Complainant operates in 36 countries, and ranks in the top 10 asset managers globally.

In the circumstances, the Panel concludes that it is more likely than not that, at the time the Domain Name was registered, the Respondent was aware of the AMUNDI trademark and the Complainant’s rights. It is reasonable to conclude that the Domain Name would not have been registered if not for the Complainant’s rights in the AMUNDI trademark.

As noted above, the Domain Name is currently inactive. Prior UDRP panels have determined that inactivity or passive holding can be regarding as “use” in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy.

The Complainant has tendered evidence of the strength of its reputation and use of the AMUNDI mark. The Respondent has failed to participate in this proceeding, or provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use of the Domain Name. Taking all of the factors into account, the Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

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.tokyo> be transferred to the Complainant.

Haig Oghigian
Sole Panelist
Date: December 4, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/