Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108895

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 is the registered owner of a number of word and/or device mark registrations incorporating the mark SDA BOCCONI, including International word mark registration 1084677 for SDA BOCCONI granted on March 31, 2011 and which is protected in numerous jurisdictions, including, in particular, China and Japan. It also owns European trade mark registration 007487978 for the word mark BOCCONI (word mark) registered on June 9, 2009.

The Complainant is a is a private university founded in Milan, Italy, by Ferdinando BOCCONI in 1902. It operates the SDA Bocconi School of Management established in 1971 as the graduate business school of Bocconi University. The Complainant has enjoyed a longstanding cooperation with Chinese academic institutions, including exchange and double-degree programmes and has actively recruited students in China.

The Complainant owns a number of domain names including, in particular: <sdabocconi.it> registered on June 7, 2000, which resolves to the Complainant's main website for the university’s services and also <sdabocconi.cn> registered on April 20, 2011.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 26, 2026. At or before the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a Chinese language website which displayed commercial advertising and featured sponsored links that directed Internet users to third-party websites offering betting and gambling services.

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 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 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 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.

The Complainant has submitted that it owns registered trade mark rights for its SDA BOCCINI mark as set out above. As submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name includes the Complainant's SDA BOCCINI mark with one modification, being the addition of a hyphen between the “sda” and “boccocini” elements of the mark. As also submitted by the Complainant, the Panel agrees that the hyphen does not prevent the SDA BOCCONI trade mark from being recognisable in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trade mark.

The Complainant has noted that its trade mark rights long predate the registration of the disputed domain name. It has also submitted that it has not in any way authorised or granted a licence to the Respondent to use the SDA BOCCONI or the BOCCONI trade marks.

The Complainant has submitted that at the date of filing the Respondent was using the disputed domain name to resolve to a Chinese-language website displaying advertising banners relating to football and online betting. It says that by clicking on these banners, Internet users were redirected to third-party websites displaying betting-related or football content, namely the website of a casino and of FIFA 2026. Such use, says the Complainant, is plainly commercial in nature, as the Respondent derives click-through revenue as a result of Internet users clicking on the advertising banners. It says that this use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, or a legitimate or non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

Although the disputed domain name does not now appear to resolve to a website, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that, at or before the date of filing of this Complaint, the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This case has not been rebutted by the Respondent and as a result the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

As far as registration in bad faith is concerned the Complainant has submitted that the disputed domain name was registered approximately 15 years after the Complainant registered its trade mark rights. Considering the Complainant's longstanding co-operation with Chinese academic institutions, as well as its exchange and double-degree programmes and active recruitment of students in China and the fact that the Complainant owns trade mark registrations there, the Complainant suggests that the Respondent’s use of the SDA BOCCONI mark in the disputed domain name cannot be coincidence. The Complainant submits that when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, the Respondent did so knowingly in order to target the Complainant. The Complainant’s SDA BOCCONI mark is distinctive in general, but particularly for Chinese speaking Internet users based in China. The Complainant owns a trade mark registration for its SDA BOCCONI mark in China and also its own ".cn" domain name incorporating this trade mark. In these circumstances and considering that the disputed domain name resolves to a Chinese language website that features banners which re-direct Internet users to commercial websites for gambling and football, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant and of the SDA BOCCONI brand when it registered the disputed domain name.

Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy there is evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith where a Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website.

The Respondent has used the disputed domain name, which is nearly identical to the Complainant's trade mark, to confuse Internet users and to re-direct them to its own Chinese language website which features banners and links to what appear to be commercial sites for gambling and football. The Panel finds that this conduct fulfils the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and amounts to evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel notes that its view of the Respondent's bad faith is further reinforced by the Respondent's apparent failure to register the disputed domain name under a bona fide name and address.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was both registered and has been used in bad faith.