1. According to standard case law, the top level domain, in this case ".com" should be ignored when comparing the disputed domain name and the INTESA SANPAOLO trademarks. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the "INTESA SANPAOLO" trademarks as the disputed domain name includes the INTESA SANPAOLO trademarks in its entirety, with the sole difference that the disputed domain name also includes the term "sicurezza", which means "security" in Italian. The addition of such generic term does not take away the similarity between the disputed domain name and the INTESA SANPAOLO trademarks.
2. The Panel finds that the Complainant successfully made a prima facie case that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, neither is Respondent making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of this disputed domain name, nor is Respondent commonly known under the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant's allegations were not challenged by the Respondent.
3. In the absence of a Response, the Panel infers that the Respondent had the Complainant's "INTESA SANPAOLO" trademarks in mind when registering the disputed domain name, as it copied the entire "INTESA SANPAOLO" trademarks, while the trademarks are sufficiently distinctive and actually well-known, that is it likely that the Respondent was familiar with the trademarks when it registered that disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name which links to a website with sponsored links to, inter alia, the Complainant’s competitors, does not constitute bona fide offerings, but rather shows the Respondent’s intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the "INTESA SANPAOLO" trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website. For these reasons the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Therefore, the Panel finds that all three elements under the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been proved by the Complainant with respect to the disputed domain name.
|