{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101608",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-07-28 08:45:49",
    "domain_names": [
        "EPSILONFUND.NETWORK"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Epsilon SGR S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "Moustache Media"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nTHE DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is Epsilon SGR S.p.A., an asset manager company owned by the well-known Intesa Sanpaolo Group and specialized in active portfolio management. \r\n\r\nBorn in 1997 as competence hub in quantitative management, the Complainant has expanded over time its activity perimeter that, since 2008, includes multi-strategy management with “total return” investment objectives. In 2010 Banca IMI became part of the shareholders, joining Eurizon Capital SGR. The joint venture made it possible for Epsilon SGR S.p.A. to extend its activity perimeter to a new family of products that also includes the competences of risk management and the skills of investment protection that are typical of an investment bank.\r\n\r\nEpsilon SGR S.p.A. counts on a team of analysts and fund managers that create innovative strategies, making it possible for the typical competences of asset management – stock and market picking, and the other levers typical of a traditional investment process – to blend with those of investment banking, such as financial instruments’ structuring, the development of investment protection methodologies and the sophisticated risk management. The joint venture between the two market leaders allows to efficiently coordinate the different phases of the investment management process.\r\n\r\nThe Intesa Sanpaolo Group, which owns the Complainant, is the leading Italian banking group and also one of the protagonists in the European financial arena, with a market capitalisation exceeding 46,4 billion euro, and the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). \r\n\r\nThanks to a network of approximately 3,900 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. The Intesa Sanpaolo Group has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1.100 branches and over 7,7 million customers. Moreover, the international network specialised in supporting corporate customers is present in 27 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 (through one of its parent company) is the owner, among the others, of the domain name <EPSILONSGR.IT>.\r\n\r\nIn addition, it shall also be considered that “EPSILON FUND” is the name that the Complainant gave to its most famous mutual fund, established in Luxembourg and consisting of seven sub-funds, each with distinctive features and marked by different management styles, ranging from active-style to total-return, as well as to quantitative methodologies. \r\n\r\nIn consideration of the above, “EPSILON FUND” shall definitely be considered a Complainant’s trade name\/business identifier.\r\n\r\nOn June 7, 2017, the Respondent registered the domain name EPSILONFUND.NETWORK.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the trademark “EPSILON”, with the only addition of the term “fund”, which is merely descriptive of the business field in which the trademark itself is used by the Complainant. \r\n\r\nIn addition, the Disputed domain name is identical – strange enough – to the mutual fund’s name “EPSILON FUND” run by the Complainant and its Group.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no rights on the Disputed domain name, since Moustache Media has nothing to do with Epsilon SGR S.p.A.. In fact, any use of the trademark “EPSILON” has to be authorized by the Complainant. Nobody has been authorized or licensed by the above-mentioned company – nor by its parent company – to use the domain name at issue.\r\n\r\nThe domain name at stake does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, Moustache Media is not commonly known as “EPSILONFUND”.\r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant does not find any fair or non-commercial uses of the domain name at stake.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe domain name <EPSILONFUND.NETWORK> was registered and is used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark “EPSILON” and the trade name\/business identifier “EPSILON FUND” are distinctive and well known all around the world. The fact that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is identical\/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 wording “EPSILON” and “EPSILON FUND”, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. This raises a clear inference of knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark on the part of the Respondent. Therefore, it is more than likely that the domain name at issue would not have been registered if it were not for Complainant’s trademark. This is a clear evidence of registration of the domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the contested domain name is not used for any bone fide offerings. More particularly, there are present circumstances indicating that, by using the 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).\r\n\r\nFirst of all, several services can be detected, but not in good faith: in fact, the Disputed domain name is connected to a website sponsoring banking and financial services, for whom the Complainant’s trademarks are registered and used.\r\n\r\nConsequently, 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 domain name at issue.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant deems that the Respondent has registered and is using the domain name at issue in order to intentionally divert traffic away from the Complainant’s web site.\r\n\r\nSeveral WIPO decisions stated that the registration and use of a domain name to re-direct internet users to websites of competing organizations constitute bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v. Shedon.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-0753 (“Respondent’s Ownership of a site which is a mis-spelling of Complainant’s britannica.com site and which Respondent used to hyperlink to a gambling site demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the britannnica.com domain name”); YAHOO! INC. v. David Murray, Case No. D2000-1013 (finding bad faith where respondent chooses a domain name similar to the complainant’s mark for a site which offers services similar to the complainant); Edmunds.com v. Ultimate Search, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-1319 (“Registration and use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites of competing organizations constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy”); Netwizards, Inc. v. Spectrum Enterprises, WIPO Case No. D2000-1768 (“Registration and continued use of the contested domain name for re-directing Internet users, i.e. particularly customers and potential customers of the Complainant, from the Complainant’s website to the website of…a company which directly competes with the Complainant, constitutes bad faith registration and use”); Oly Holigan, L.P. v. Private, Case No. FA0011000095940 (finding bad faith where respondent used the disputed domain name to “redirect the Complainant’s consumers and potential consumers to commercial websites which are not affiliated with Complainant”); Marriott International, Inc. v. Kyznetsov, Case No. FA0009000095648 (finding bad faith where respondent registered the domain name <marriottrewards.com> and used it to route internet traffic to another website that “promotes travel and hotel services . . . identical to the services offered by the Complainant”); Zwack Unicom Ltd v. Duna, WIPO Case No. D2000-0037 (respondent’s linking to complainant’s competitor held to constitute bad faith); Schneider Electric SA v. Ningbo Wecans Network Technology Co., Ltd, Ningbo Eurosin International Trade Co., Ltd., Case No. D2004-0554; Microsoft Corporation v. StepWeb, Case No. D2000-1500; Baudville, Inc. v. Henry Chan, Case No. D2004-0059; National City Corporation v. MH Networks LLC, Case No. D2004-0128.\r\n\r\nThe current use of the Disputed domain name, which allows accessing to the web sites of the Complainant’s competitors, also through the Complainant’s trademarks, causes, as well, great damages to the latter, due to the misleading of their present clients and to the loss of potential new ones. So, the Respondent’s conduct is even worse (see WIPO Decisions n. D2000-1500, Microsoft Corporation v. StepWeb, and D2001-1335, The Vanguard Group, Inc v. Venta). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the Respondent’s commercial gain is evident, since it is obvious that the Respondent’s sponsoring activity is being remunerated.\r\n\r\nOn July 10, 2017, the Complainant’s attorneys sent to the Respondent a cease and desist letter, asking for the voluntary transfer of the contested domain name to their client. The Respondent never replied to such communication.\r\n\r\nIn the light of the above, the third and final element necessary for finding that the Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration and use has been established.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of other legal proceedings, pending or otherwise, 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 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": [
        "Udo Pfleghar"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-09-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of various registrations for the trademark “EPSILON”, for example:\r\n\r\n- EU trademark registration n. 1642537 “EPSILON”, filed on May 5, 2000, granted on July 3, 2001 and duly renewed, in connection with class 36;\r\n- Benelux trademark registration n. 1237240 “EPSILON”, filed on November 30, 2011 and granted on March 12, 2012, in connection with class 36;\r\n- Italian trademark registration n. 1495669 “EPSILON”, filed on November 30, 2011 and granted on June 6, 2012, in connection with class 36.\r\n\r\nThrough its business ventures, the Complainant is also the proprietor of the name “EPSILON FUND” in use for a financial product, which the Complainant has shown to be in use by showing references in the trade press and use on the main stock exchanges operating worldwide through Internet printouts attached to the Complaint. In consideration of the above, “EPSILON FUND” is also the trade name of a financial product actively promoted and offered by the Complainant.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "EPSILONFUND.NETWORK": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}