1.
The Panel finds that all eight disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”:
Many panels have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where it incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. This is the case here, where all of the disputed domain names contain one or both registered trademarks. The combination of these trademark(s) with the term "DI" or further terms, such as "SMS", "SICUREZZA" (meaning "safety"), "PERSONE-E-FAMIGLIE" (meaning "persons and families), "LOGIN-PAGE", "ENTRA" (meaning "enter") or MOBILE does not avoid the finding of confusing similarity. These terms will either not be noted by the public ("DI") or are descriptive and will therefore lead to users' confusing expectations that corresponding websites run by the Complainant are accessible under the respective domain names.
2.
In the absence of any response, or any other information from the Respondent indicating the contrary, the Panel further holds that the Complainant successfully presented its prima facie case and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
In particular, the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, and it is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. In addition, the Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. Finally, the websites available under the disputed domain names only show construction websites with can neither be considered as bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
3.
Finally, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names have also been registered and are being used in bad faith.
First, it is to be noted that the non-use of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.
It is the view of this Panel that the Respondent has intentionally registered the series of disputed domain names, which fully include the Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and/or "INTESA". In addition, the Panel notes that Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and "INTESA" are deemed well-known at least in Italy, where the respondent is located. Therefore, it is the view of this Panel that the Respondent knew or should have known that the disputed domain names are almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark(s) when it registered these domain names. Registration of a domain name in awareness of a reputed trademark and in the absence of rights or legitimate interests amounts to registration in bad faith.
Considering the high similarity between the trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO” and/or "INTESA" and the disputed domain names, which suggests the Respondent’s awareness of the trademark, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names for bad faith purposes. Relevant additional factors supporting these findings are (i) the high degree of distinctiveness and the worldwide reputation of the Complainant’s marks, (ii) the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, (iii) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain names may be put and, (iv) the Respondent hiding his identity behind a privacy shield.
|