FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
PRELIMINARY COMPLAINANT’S REQUEST FOR ENGLISH TO BE ONE OF THE LANGUAGES OF THIS PROCEEDING
The Complainant wishes to keep English as the language of the proceeding.
First of all, the Complainant is an Italian company, while the Respondent is a Russian citizen and the language of the registration agreement is Russian.
Given the above, the present Complaint was written in English, a third international language comprehensible to a wide range of Internet users worldwide, including the ones living in Italy and in Russia.
Since the spirit of Paragraph 11 of the Rules seems to be to ensure fairness in the selection of language by giving full considerations to the parties’ level of comfort with each language, English seemed to be the fair language in the present proceeding.
Furthermore, it is true that there are no evidences of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be in English. However, it is not possible to ignore that the present dispute has been started because the Respondent deliberately registered a domain name which is identical to a well-known registered trademark legitimately owned and used IN ITALY by the Complainant from several years all around the world. Since it is inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of such circumstance when it registered the disputed domain name, the Complainant believes that a fair solution shall be – at least – to:
1) accept the Complaint as filed in English;
2) accept a Response in either English, or Italian, or Russian (or the preferable language of the Respondent, if any);
3) appoint a Panel familiar with such languages (it shall be considered that there are several Russian-speaking and Italian-speaking CAC Panelist in the list provided at https://udrp.adr.eu).
So, in accordance with the instructions submitted by the CAC, for the reasons described above, the Complainant requested the Panelist to maintain English the proceeding language or, at least, one of the languages accepted by the Panel.
***
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES ARE IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS
The Complainant is the leading Italian banking group and also one of the protagonists in the European financial arena. Intesa Sanpaolo is the company resulting from the merger (effective as of January 1, 2007) between Banca Intesa S.p.A. and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A., two of the top Italian banking groups.
Intesa Sanpaolo is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 27,2 billion euro, and the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). Thanks to a network of approximately 3,700 branches capillary and well distributed throughout the Country, with market shares of more than 15% in most Italian regions, the Group offers its services to approximately 11,8 million customers. Intesa Sanpaolo has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1.000 branches and over 7,2 million customers. Moreover, the international network specialised in supporting corporate customers is present in 25 countries, in particular in the Mediterranean area and those areas where Italian companies are most active, such as the United States, Russia, China and India.
The Complainant is the owner, among others, of the following registrations for the trademarks “INTESA” and “INTESA SANPAOLO”:
- International trademark registration n. 793367 “INTESA”, granted on September 4, 2002 and duly renewed, in class 36;
- International trademark registration n. 920896 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, granted on March 7, 2007 and duly renewed, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, 42;
- EU trademark registration n. 12247979 “INTESA”, applied on October 23, 2013 and granted on March 5, 2014, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42; and
- EU trademark registration n. 5301999 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, applied on September 8, 2006, granted on June 18, 2007 and duly renewed, in classes 35, 36 and 38.
Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner, among the others, of the following domain names bearing the signs “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”: INTESASANPAOLO.COM, .ORG, .EU, .INFO, .NET, .BIZ, INTESA-SANPAOLO.COM, .ORG, .EU, .INFO, .NET, .BIZ and INTESA.COM, INTESA.INFO, INTESA.BIZ, INTESA.ORG, INTESA.US, INTESA.EU, INTESA.CN, INTESA.IN, INTESA.CO.UK, INTESA.TEL, INTESA.NAME, INTESA.XXX, INTESA.ME (all of them are now connected to the official website http://www.intesasanpaolo.com.).
On January 15, 2020, the Respondent registered the domain names <INTESASANPALO.HOST>, <INTESASANPALO.SITE>, <INTESASANPALO.SPACE> and <INTESASANPALO.WEBSITE>.
It is more than obvious that the domain names at issue are identical, or – at least – confusingly similar, to the Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid domain names exactly reproduce the well-known trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO”, with the mere omission of the first letter “O” in the mark’s verbal portion “SANPAOLO”. This is a clear example of typosquatting.
In support of the above, the Complainant wishes to draw the Panel’s attention to WIPO decision Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft v New York TV Tickets Inc, Case n. D2001-1314 – regarding the domain names <duetschebank.com> and <duetsche-bank.com>”. The Panel considered such domain names as being confusingly similar and a clear example of “a case of ‘typosquatting’ where the domain name is a slight alphabetical variation from a famous mark. WIPO jurisprudence offers many examples of confusing similarity brought about through easily made typing errors by an Internet user – particularly when the mark is another language from that of the user’s mother tongue.” The same case lies before us in this matter.
THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain names, and any use of the trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA” has to be authorized by the Complainant. Nobody has been authorized or licensed by the above-mentioned banking group to use the domain names at issue.
The domain names at stake do not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of our knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as “INTESASANPALO”.
Lastly, we do not find any fair or non-commercial uses of the domain names at stake (see http://intesasanpalo.host/ http://intesasanpalo.site/ http://intesasanpalo.space/ and http://intesasanpalo.website/ home-page).
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES WERE REGISTERED AND ARE USED IN BAD FAITH
The domain names <INTESASANPALO.HOST>, <INTESASANPALO.SITE>, <INTESASANPALO.SPACE> and <INTESASANPALO.WEBSITE> were registered and are used in bad faith.
The Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA” are distinctive and well known all around the world. The fact that the Respondent has registered three domain names that are confusingly similar to it indicates that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. In addition, if the Respondent had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wordings “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. The Complainant submits an extract of a Google search in support of its allegation. This raises a clear inference of knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark on the part of the Respondent. Therefore, it is more than likely that the domain names at issue would not have been registered if it were not for Complainant’s trademark. This is a clear evidence of registration of the disputed domain names in bad faith.
In addition, the disputed domain names are not used for any bone fide offerings. More particularly, there are present circumstances indicating that, by using the domain names, the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain names registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain names (par. 4(b)(i) of the Policy).
The disputed domain names are not used for any bone fide offerings, even if they are connected to a Registrar’s web page without particular active contents, by now. In fact, countless UDRP decisions confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party’s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use (see, in this regard, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, enclosed as Annex E, and also the panels’ consensus view on this point, as reflected in the “WIPO Overview of WIPO Views on Selected UDRP Questions” at paragraph 3.2.).
In particular, the consensus view of WIPO UDRP panellists is that passive holding of a disputed domain name may, in appropriate circumstances, be consistent with a finding of bad faith. However, panels have tended to make such findings in circumstances in which, for example, a complainant’s mark is well-known, and there is no conceivable use that could be made of the domain name that would not amount to an infringement of the complainant’s trade mark rights.
As regards to the first aspect, the Complainant has already extensively proved the renowned of its trademarks. For what concern the second circumstance, it must be underlined that it is objectively not possible to understand what kind of use the Respondent could make with 3 domain names which do exactly correspond to the Complainant’s trademarks and that result so similar to the Complainant’s domain names currently used by the latter to provide online banking services for enterprises.
In the light of the above, the present case completely matches to the above requirements and the passive holding of the disputed domain names has to be considered a use in bad faith: «The very act of having acquired [the domain name] raises the probability of Respondent using [it] in a manner that is contrary to Complainant’s legal rights and legitimate interests. [...] To argue that Complainant should have to wait for some future use of the disputed domain names to occur in order to demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith use is to render intellectual property law into an instrument of abuse by the Respondent. The result would be the likelihood of the accumulation and use of disputed domain names for the implicit, if not explicit, purpose of misappropriating or otherwise unlawfully undermining Complainant’s goodwill and business. The fact that this misappropriation may occur in any as yet undetermined manner at an uncertain future date does not negate Respondent’s bad faith. On the contrary, it raises the specter of continuing bad faith abuse by Respondent of Complainant’s Mark, name and related rights and legitimate business interests» (Decision No. D2004-0615, Comerica Inc. v. Horoshiy, Inc., concerning just the case of a bank).
The risk of a wrongful use of the domain names at issue is even higher in the present case, since the Complainant has already been targeted by some cases of phishing in the past few years. Such a practice consists of attracting the customers of a bank to a web page which imitates the real page of the bank, with a view to having customers disclose confidential information like a credit card or bank account number, for the purpose of unlawfully charging such bank accounts or withdrawing money out of them. It happened that some clients of the Complainant have received e-mail messages asking, by the means of web pages which were very similar to the Complainant’s ones, the sensitive data of the Clients, like user ID, password etc. Then, some of the Clients have been cheated of their savings.
Also in the present case, the Complainant believes that the current owner registered the disputed domain names with the “phishing” purpose, in order to induce and divert the Complainant’s legitimate customers to its website and steal their money and the above could be easily verified given the particular nature of the disputed domain names (typosquatting).
Even excluding any “phishing” purposes or other illicit use of the domain names in the present case, anyway we could find no other possible legitimate use of <INTESASANPALO.HOST>, <INTESASANPALO.SITE>, <INTESASANPALO.SPACE> and <INTESASANPALO.WEBSITE>. The sole further aim of the owner of the domain names under consideration might be to resell them to the Complainant, which represents, in any case, an evidence of the registration and use in bad faith, according to par. 4(b)(i) («circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name»).
Lastly, it shall be noted that on February 13, 2020 the Complainant’s attorneys sent to the to the Respondent’s Registrar a cease and desist letter, asking to forward the document to the domain name owner in order to require the voluntary transfer of the domain name at issue. Despite such communication, the Respondent did not comply with the above request.
In the light of the above, the third and final element necessary for finding that the Respondent has engaged in abusive domain names registration and use has been established.
|