{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101547",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-05-25 09:54:41",
    "domain_names": [
        "WWWBANCAPROSSIMA.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "Balticsea LLC "
    ],
    "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. \r\n\r\nIntesa Sanpaolo is the company resulting from the merger 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 44,7 billion euro.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has a network of approximately 3,900 branches throughout the Country and has approximately 11.1 million customers. \r\n\r\nIntesa Sanpaolo has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1.100 branches and over 7,7 million customers. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant's international network specialised in supporting corporate customers is present in 28 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\nOne of Complainant’s subsidiaries is Banca Prossima S.p.A., which is a bank entirely dedicated to the non-profit world.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several registrations for the trademark “BANCA PROSSIMA\".\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner, among others, of the following domain names bearing the sign “BANCA PROSSIMA”: “BANCAPROSSIMA.COM\", \"BANCAPROSSIMA.ORG\", \"BANCAPROSSIMA.EU\", \"BANCAPROSSIMA.INFO\", \"BANCAPROSSIMA.NET\", \"BANCAPROSSIMA.BIZ\", \"BANCAPROSSIMA.IT”. All of them are pointing to the main Complainant’s website.\r\n\r\nOn 8 June 2010, the Respondent registered the Disputed domain name “WWWBANCAPROSSIMA.COM”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that it is obvious that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the domain name “WWWBANCAPROSSIMA.COM” exactly reproduces the trademark “BANCA PROSSIMA”, with the mere addition of letters “www” before the verbal portion “BANCA”. The Complainant observes that such difference is clearly a minor and merely descriptive variation of the cited trademark, used by the Complainant to identify its online banking service for the enterprises.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights on the Disputed domain name. The Complainant claims that any use of the trademark “BANCA PROSSIMA” has to be authorized by the Complainant and that nobody has been authorized or licensed to use the Disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the Disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of the Complainant's knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as “WWWBANCAPROSSIMA”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that it does not find any fair or non-commercial uses of the Disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that its trademark “BANCA PROSSIMA” is distinctive and well known all around the world. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the fact that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark indicates that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the Disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that if the Respondent had carried a basic Google search in respect of the wording “BANCA PROSSIMA”, the search would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the Disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offering of goods or services. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that there are 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. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the Disputed domain name is connected to a website sponsoring, among others, banking and financial services.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that Internet users, while searching for information on the Complainant’s services, are confusingly led to the websites of the Complainant’s competitors, sponsored on the websites connected to the Disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed domain name with the aim of diverting traffic away from the Complainant’s web site.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant highlights the damages connected to above mentioned situation and points out that the Respondent is remunerated by the sponsoring activity carried out using the Disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that on 28 April 2017 the Complainant’s attorneys sent to the Respondent a cease and desist letter, asking for the voluntary transfer of the Disputed domain name to their client. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent did not comply with the above mentioned request.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that 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 name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Michele Antonini"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-07-02 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the following registrations for the trademark “BANCA PROSSIMA”:\r\n\r\n- EU trademark registration n. 005743208 “BANCA PROSSIMA”, filed on 8 March 2007, granted on 16 January 2008 and duly renewed, in connection with classes 35, 36 and 41;\r\n\r\n- EU trademark registration n. 005804232 “BANCA PROSSIMA”, filed on 2 April 2007, granted on 17 January 2008 and duly renewed, in connection with classes 35, 36, 38 and 41;\r\n\r\n- EU trademark registration n. 005804133 “BANCA PROSSIMA IMPRESE SOCIALI E COMUNITÀ”, filed on 2 April 2007, granted on 17 January 2008 and duly renewed, in connection with classes 35, 36 and 41;\r\n\r\n- EU trademark registration n. 009050527 “BANCA PROSSIMA PER LE IMPRESE SOCIALI E LE COMUNITÀ”, filed on 23 April 2010 and granted on 14 September 2010, in connection with classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "WWWBANCAPROSSIMA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}