{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101458",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-03-03 09:50:06",
    "domain_names": [
        "ALEXBANK.BIZ"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "buy domain"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the leading Italian banking group and also one of the protagonists in the European financial arena. Intesa Sanpaolo is the company resulting from the merger (effective as of January 1, 2007) between Banca Intesa S.p.A. and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A., two of the top Italian banking groups.\r\n\r\nIntesa Sanpaolo is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 36,3 billion euro, and the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). Thanks to a network of approximately 4,000 branches capillary and well distributed throughout the Country, with market shares of more than 13% in most Italian regions, the Group offers its services to approximately 11.1 million customers. Intesa Sanpaolo has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1.200 branches and over 7,8 million customers. Moreover, the international network specialised in supporting corporate customers is present in 29 countries, in particular in the Mediterranean area and those areas where Italian companies are most active, such as the United States, Russia, China and India. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the major shareholder of Bank of Alexandria (commonly known as “Alex Bank”), one of the largest banks in Egypt, with 210 branches across the country, a market share of almost 7% and assets of 5.2 billion Euros.\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nOn January 24, 2017, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name “ALEXBANK.BIZ”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant proclaims that: it is more than obvious that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. In fact, the disputed domain name “ALEXBANK.BIZ” exactly reproduces the trademark “ALEXBANK”, while it is highly similar to the trademark “BANK OF ALEXANDRIA”, both owned by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that: the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name, since “buy domain” has nothing to do with Intesa Sanpaolo. In fact, any use of the trademarks “ALEXBANK” and “BANK OF ALEXANDRIA” has to be authorized by the Complainant. Nobody has been authorized or licensed by the above-mentioned banking group to use the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name at stake does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of our knowledge, “buy domain” is not commonly known as “ALEXBANK”. Lastly, we do not find any fair or non-commercial uses of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant finally contends that the disputed domain name “ALEXBANK.BIZ” was registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that: its trademarks “ALEXBANK” and “BANK OF ALEXANDRIA” are distinctive and well known all around the world. The fact that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to them indicates that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. In addition, if the Respondent had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wordings “ALEXBANK” and “BANK OF ALEXANDRIA”, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. This raises a clear inference of knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks on the part of the Respondent. Therefore, it is more than likely that the disputed domain name would not have been registered if it were not for the Complainant’s trademarks. This is a clear evidence of registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the disputed domain name is not used for any bone fide offerings. More particularly, there are present circumstances indicating that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his web site (par. 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name has been acquired by the Respondent for the purpose of selling the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name itself (par. 4(b)(i) of the Policy).\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed. ",
    "rights": "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).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "REQUEST FOR ENGLISH TO BE THE LANGUAGE OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING\r\n\r\nIt is true that the language of the registration agreement is Japanese.\r\n\r\nHowever, the Complainant is an Italian company, while the Respondent is Chinese. Consequently, the present Complaint was written in English, an international language comprehensible to a wide range of Internet users worldwide. Since the spirit of Paragraph 11 of the Rules seems to be to ensure fairness in the selection of language by giving full considerations to the parties’ level of comfort with each language, English seemed to be the fair language in the present proceeding. \r\n\r\nIt is true that there are no evidences of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be in English. \r\n\r\nGiven the above, it is not possible to ignore that the present dispute has been started because the Respondent deliberately registered a domain name which is identical to a well-known registered trademark legitimately owned and used by the Complainant from several years all around the world. Since it is inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of such circumstance when it registered the disputed domain name, the Complainant believes that a fair solution shall be – at least – to:\r\n\r\n1) accept the Complaint filed in English; \r\n\r\n2) accept a Response in either English, or Japanese, or Chinese (or the preferable language of the Respondent, if any); \r\n\r\n3) appoint a Panel familiar with both languages.\r\n\r\nSo, in accordance with the instructions submitted by the CAC, for the reasons described above, the Complainant hereby requests the Case Manager to maintain English the proceeding language or, at least, one of the languages accepted by the Panel.\r\n\r\nThe Panel has discretion to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings on appointment.  See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Ed. The Complainant respectfully requests that the proceedings be conducted in English. See Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, Case No. D2008-1191 (WIPO Oct. 15, 2008) (holding that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where “the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English”). Moreover, conducting these proceedings in a language other than English will cause the Complainant to incur significant additional burden and delay to translate the Complaint and other documents.  See SWX Swiss Exchange v. SWX Financial LTD, D2008-0400 (WIPO May 12, 2008) (in determining the language of the proceeding, “account should be taken of the risk that a strict and unbending application of paragraph 11 may result in delay, and considerable and unnecessary expenses of translating documents…”).  Moreover, the current proceeding will have to be divided if it cannot be conducted solely in English, resulting in additional burden and delay.  \r\n\r\nGiven Respondent’s no objection to the Complainant's language request and its absence of Response to the Complaint, the Panel determines that English is the language for these proceedings.\r\n\r\nThe 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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-04-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner, among others, of the following registrations for the trademarks “ALEXBANK” and “BANK OF ALEXANDRIA”:\r\n\r\n-Egyptian trademark application n. 245180 “ALEX BANK”, filed on April 29, 2010, in relation with class 36;\r\n\r\n-International trademark registration n. 965677 “BANK OF ALEXANDRIA” (in Latin and Arabian character), granted on May 6, 2008, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 41 and 42;\r\n\r\n-Community trademark registration n. 6662944 “BANK OF ALEXANDRIA” (in Latin and Arabian character), filed on February 12, 2008 and granted on January 22, 2009, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 41 and 42;\r\n\r\n-Community trademark registration n. 6433106 “BANK OF ALEXANDRIA”, filed on November 13, 2007 and granted on October 2, 2008, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 41 and 42;\r\n\r\n-Italian trademark registration n. 1110440 “BANK OF ALEXANDRIA” (in Latin and Arabian character), filed on March 7, 2008 and granted on May 6, 2008, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 41 and 42.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant owns, among the others, the domain names <ALEXBANK.COM>, <BANKOFALEXANDRIA.EU>, <BANKOFALEXANDRIA.IT> and <BANKOFALEXANDRIA.COM.EG>.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ALEXBANK.BIZ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}