IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
The Domain Name is LNTESASANPAOLO-GRUPPO.COM. This consists of a misspelling of the Complainant’s 'INTESA SANPAOLO' trade mark, in that the 'I' in the word INTESA has been replaced with the letter 'L'. The Panel does not regard the substitution of the letter L in place of the letter I (in the manner stated above) to sufficiently alter the nature of the Domain Name such that it might avoid a finding of the Domain Name being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks not least considering the fact the letter 'L' is similar in its appearance to the character 'I'.
The Domain Name is also very similar to the Complainant's 'GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO' trade mark, where the word 'GRUPPO' has simply been moved to the end of the name, with an addition of a hyphen prefix.
The ‘.com’ suffix may be disregarded when it comes to considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which a complainant has rights.
From previous decisions, it is well established that typosquatting can constitute a finding that the domain name is confusingly similar (Sanofi v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / domain admin Case No. D2013-0368, Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings, Case No. D2004-0971). The Panel considers this to be a clear case of typosquatting.
Given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s 'INTESA SANPAOLO' and 'GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO' trade marks, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to trade marks for which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The Complainant succeeds on the first element of the Policy.
RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
The Respondent failed to file an administratively compliant (or any) response to the Complainant’s complaint. In the circumstances, the Panel finds from the facts put forward that there is no evidence of any circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances giving rise to a right to or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
The Respondent does not appear to have any trade marks associated with the 'INTESA SANPAOLO' or 'GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO' marks or any variation thereof.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the name 'INTESA SANPAOLO' or 'GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO' or any variation thereof, and the Respondent does not have authorisation from the Complainant to use the 'INTESA SANPAOLO' and/or 'GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO' trade marks.
Further, no evidence has been provided to show that the Respondent has used the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services of its own. There is no active website associated with the Domain Name.
On the balance of probabilities, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary (or any administratively compliant response at all) being put forward by the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
REGISTERED AND USED IN BAD FAITH
The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive criteria which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
On the balance of probabilities, and in the absence of any evidence contrary (or any administratively compliant response at all) being put forward by the Respondent, this Panel believes from the facts in this case that:
- The Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trade marks 'INTESA SANPAOLO' and 'GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO' and that they had such knowledge prior to the registration and use of the Domain Name. Not least as the Respondent is based in Italy and the Complainant is well known in Italy. In the circumstances, the Panel believes it therefore likely that the Respondent had the Complainant’s 'INTESA SANPAOLO' and 'GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO' trade marks in mind when registering the Domain Name.
- The Respondent is likely to have acquired the Domain Name for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; and/or
- The Respondent has likely engaged in typosquatting to cause confusion with the Complainant’s 'INTESA SANPAOLO' mark for their own commercial gain.
- The Domain Name does not have an active website associated with it save for a message stating the site is under maintenance. There are numerous instances where panelists have previously found that the non-use / passive use of a domain name, including where the domain name presents a blank or 'coming soon' page, does not prevent a finding of bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Case No. D2000-0574, Ladbroke Group Plc v. Sonoma International LDC, Case No. D 2002-0131). The Panel considers that in the circumstances it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active or inactive use of the Domain Name by the Respondent that would provide a bona fide offering and/or would not amount to use of the Domain Name in bad faith.
In light of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the requirements of the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met and the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
|