Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107694

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant relies on the following registered trademarks (amongst others):

• international trademark no. 920896 for the word mark INTESA SANPAOLO registered on 7 March 2007 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;

• EU trademark no. 005301999 for the work mark INTESA SANPAOLO registered on 18 June 2007 in classes 35, 36 and 38 pursuant to an application filed on 8 September 2006.

The Complainant's group was formed by a merger of Banca Intesa SpA and Sanpaolo IMI Spa in 2007 and is the leading Italian banking business.  It has 3000 branches throughout Italy serving about 14 million customers. It also has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of about 900 branches and over 7.5 million customers. 

INTESA SANPAOLO is the primary mark used by the group. As stated above the Complainant has registered this as a mark in the EU and internationally. The Complainant has also registered numerous domain names containing "intesasanpaolo" including <intesasanpaolo.com>, <intesasanpaolo.org>, <intesasanpaolo.info>, <intesasanpaolo.net> and <intesasanpaolo.biz>.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <intesasanpaolo.shop> on 18 January 2025. The disputed domain name has been directed to a parking page on which it is offered for sale for USD $200.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered rights in the mark INTESASANPAOLO. The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's registered mark in its entirety together with the generic top level domain name suffix, "shop", which clearly is insufficient to avoid confusion.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

The Panel finds on the undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant that the Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate non-commercial or fair use, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any corresponding name, and that the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use any such name.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's out-of-pocket costs directly related to it. This constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. This presumption has not been displaced by any contrary evidence.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

Disputed domain name consists of Complainant's registered mark and generic top level domain name suffix. No bona fide use by the Respondent. Offer for sale at a price substantially exceeding cost of registration. Bad faith found in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.