{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102320",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-01-29 16:09:34",
    "domain_names": [
        "INTESASANPAOLLO.COM",
        "INTESASANPPAOLO.COM",
        "INTEESASANPAOLO.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "cao bing"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant (Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.) 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\nAll disputed domain names <intesasanpaollo.com>, <intesasanppaolo.com> and <inteesasanpaolo.com> were registered on 7 December 2018 and are held by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe domain name websites (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain names) are automatically redirected to various websites offering financial or similar services.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain names to Complainant. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that: \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain names contain “BANCA” and “SANPAOLO” word elements of Complainant's trademarks in its entirety and thus they are almost identical (i.e. confusingly similar) to Complainant’s trademarks since the domain names differ from the Complainant trademarks by only one extra letter in each disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.\r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names. \r\n\r\n-\tThe Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by any of the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\n-\tFurthermore, the domain name websites have not been used for any legitimate or fair purposes.\r\n \r\n\r\nBAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n-\tSeniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain names registration and such trademarks are well known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered aware of the Complainant's trademarks when registering the disputed domain names due to well-known character thereof, which should have been checked by the Respondent by performing a simple internet search. \r\n\r\n-\tThe disputed domain names (at the time of filing of the complaint) are not used for any bona fide offerings. More particularly, there are present circumstances indicating that, by using the domain names, 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\t\r\n-\tIt is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks which enjoys strong reputation, plus other facts, such as above described unfair use of the disputed domain names, are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\n-\tThe Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that registering a domain name incorporating trademarks that enjoy high level of notoriety and well-known character constitute prima facie registration in bad faith, despite a fact that such domain names are not genuinely used.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant presents the following evidence that has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n-\tInformation about the Complainant and its business;\r\n-\tExcerpts from various trademark databases regarding Complainant's trademarks and copies of certificates of registration of such trademarks;\r\n-\tScreenshots of the disputed domain name website (evidencing unfair use of the same);\r\n-\tScreenshots of Google search results for “Banca Sanpaolo”;\r\n-\tA letter from Complainant to Respondent (dated 17 January 2019) requesting transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant;\r\n- \tVarious WIPO ADR decisions concerning similar domain names disputes.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.\r\n",
    "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": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-03-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademarks containing word elements \"INTESA\" and “SANPAOLO”:\r\n\r\n(i)\tINTESA SANPAOLO (word), EU Trademark, filing (priority) date 8 September 2006, registration no. 5301999, registered for services in classes 35, 36 and 38;\r\n\r\n(ii)\tINTESA SANPAOLO & device (combined), EU Trademark, filing (priority) date 8 September 2006, registration no. 5421177, registered for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;\r\n\r\nbesides other national  and international trademarks consisting of the \" INTESA SANPAOLO\" denomination.\r\n(collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term „INTESA\" and “SANPAOLO”.\r\n\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INTESASANPAOLLO.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "INTESASANPPAOLO.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "INTEESASANPAOLO.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}