{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101797",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-12-14 08:53:51",
    "domain_names": [
        "INTESAINVEST.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "Mic Yeh"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that it is a leading Italian banking group and also one of the protagonists in the European financial arena. The Complainant 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\nThe Complainant asserts that consumers commonly identify the Complainant as “INTESA”, the typical abbreviation of its business name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that it belongs to the top banking groups in the Euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 48,3 billion euro, and that it is the undisputed financial\/banking leader in Italy in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). The Complainant asserts that it has a network of approximately 4,800 branches, which are distributed throughout the Country, with market shares of more than 16% in most Italian regions. The Complainant asserts that the Intesa Group offers its services to approximately 12,6 million customers. The Complainant further asserts that it has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1.100 branches and over 7,6 million customers. Finally, the Complainant asserts that its international network specialised in supporting corporate customers is present in 26 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 submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the trademarks mentioned above under \"Identification of rights\". \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that it is the owner of various domain names consisting of the term \"INTESA\" and different domain extensions (including INTESA.com, INTESA.eu, INTESA.org, INTESA.cn, INTESA.co.uk, etc. However, the Complainant did not submit evidence of these assertions. \r\n\r\nOn September 12, 2017, the Respondent registered the domain name <INTESAINVEST.COM>.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that its lawyers have sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on October 30, 2017 (a copy of this letter was submitted by the Complainant). According to the Complainant, the Respondent did not reply to this cease and desist letter. \r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided related to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS: \r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark.\r\n\r\nThe manner in which the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark:\r\n\r\nMark combined with generic term\r\n\r\n\r\nII. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nCategories of issues involved:\r\n\r\nInactive website\r\n\r\n\r\nIII. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Categories of issues involved:\r\n\r\nHolding domain name for purposes of selling, licensing or renting\r\n\r\nOffer to public",
    "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": [
        "Bart Van Besien"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-01-22 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the following trademarks: \r\n\r\n- International trademark registration n. 1027279 “BANCA INTESA”, registered on November 18, 2009, in connection with classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42 (figurative mark with word elements; various denominations under the Madrid protocol);\r\n\r\n- EU trademark registration n. 12247979 “INTESA”, filed on October 23, 2013 and registered on March 5, 2014, in connection with classes 9, 16, 35, 36 (including banking services, insurances, and financial affairs), 38, 41, and 42;\r\n\r\n- US trademark registration n. 4196961 “INTESA”, filed on June 30, 2011 and registered on August 28, 2012, in connection with class 36 (including banking services).",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INTESAINVEST.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}