{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102263",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-12-18 15:30:31",
    "domain_names": [
        "4555553INTESASANPAOLO.INFO"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "Ida Ekkert"
    ],
    "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 most prominent figures 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. Intesa Sanpaolo is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 34,2 billion euro, and it is the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). With a network of approximately 4,400 branches capillary and well distributed throughout the Country, with market shares of more than 16% in most Italian regions, the Group offers its services to approximately 11,9 million customers. Intesa Sanpaolo also has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1.000 branches and over 7,5 million customers. Moreover, the international network specialised in supporting corporate customers is present in 25 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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks as it incorporates the entirety of the INTESA SANPAOLO name and merely adds a series of numbers plus the .info TLD. Although there is no website that resolves from the disputed domain name, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark, it is not commonly known by the name, and it is not making a bona fide or fair use of the disputed domain name. Further, despite its lack of a resolving website, present circumstances indicate that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it or for a phishing scheme.    ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings related 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.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Panel has been advised that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Russian. However, the Complainant has submitted the Complaint and all of its annexes in the English language. The Complainant is an Italian company, while the Respondent is Russian. Consequently, the present Complaint was written in English, an international language comprehensible to a wide range of Internet users worldwide. The spirit of Paragraph 11 of the Rules is to ensure fairness in the selection of language by giving full considerations to the parties’ level of comfort with each language.\r\n\r\nAs the Respondent has failed to file a Response or any other manner of submission in this case and has also not objected to use of the English language for the pleadings, the Panel has decided to exercise its discretion under UDRP Rules 10 and 11(a) and hold that it is equitable and appropriate for the language of this decision to be English.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Steven M. Levy, Esq."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-01-24 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant is the owner of a number of trademark registrations covering various jurisdictions including the following:\r\n\r\n- International trademark registration n. 920896 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, granted on March 7, 2007 and duly renewed, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;\r\n\r\n- EU trademark registration n. 5301999 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, applied on September 8, 2006, granted on June 18, 2007 and duly renewed, in classes 35, 36 and 38;\r\n\r\n- EU trademark registration n. 5421177 “INTESA SANPAOLO & device”, applied on October 27, 2006, granted on November 5, 2007 and duly renewed, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;\r\n\r\n- International trademark registration n. 793367 “INTESA”, granted on September 4, 2002 and duly renewed, in connection with class 36;\r\n\r\n- U.S. trademark registration n. 4196961 “INTESA”, filed on June 30, 2011 and granted on August 28, 2012, in connection with class 36; and\r\n\r\n- EU trademark registration n. 12247979 “INTESA”, filed on October 23, 2013 and granted on March 5, 2014, in connection with classes 9, 16, 35, 36 38, 41 and 42.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "4555553INTESASANPAOLO.INFO": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}