{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102579",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-07-23 10:05:30",
    "domain_names": [
        "intesasanpolao.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "Jacob Princewill"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is an Italian banking group which was established on 1 January 2007 resulting from the merger of Banca Intesa S.p.A and San Paolo IMI S.p.A being effected. The Complainant operates in retail, corporate and wealth management and is among the top banking groups in the Euro zone with a market shares of more than 16 % in most Italian regions, with 4,100 branches covering 11.8 million customers. Further the Complainant’s Central-Eastern European network has approximately 1,100 branches covering over 7.3 million customers.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of a number of trade marks including the INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA marks. In addition, the Complainant also owns numerous domain names featuring the INTESA SANPAOLO mark which all link to its official website at www.intesasanpaolo.com.\r\n\r\nThe Domain Name was registered by ‘Jacob Princewell’ (the ‘Respondent’) on 14 May 2019. The Domain Name is currently connected to a website featuring numerous links to third party websites.\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name <INTESASANPOLAO.COM> (the ‘Domain Name’).",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or at least confusingly similar to its registered trade marks for INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA. Further the Complainant argues that the mere inversion of some letters in the latter verbal portion of the mark ‘PAOLO’ to ‘POLAO’ in the Domain Name is a clear example of ‘typosquatting’. \r\n\r\nTyposquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, and can be evidence of a respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name because neither licence nor authorisation has been granted to the Respondent to make use of the Complainant’s INTESA SANPAOLO and\/or INTESA trade marks by the Complainant. The Complainant states that the 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 INTESA SANPOLAO.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA are well-known marks globally in relation to the Complainant. A basic Google search on the wording INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA will only bring up results which relate to the Complainant. The Complainant argues this creates a clear inference of knowledge on the part of the Respondent of the Complainant’s trade marks. As a result, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name would not have been registered by the Respondent if it were not for the Complainant’s trade marks. \r\n\r\nFurther, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of his website, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website. The Complainant states the Domain Name is connected to a website which sponsors banking and financial services which are services that the Complainant’s trade marks ‘INTESA SANPAOLO’ and ‘INTESA’ are registered for. In addition to sponsoring such services, the website connected to the Domain Name also provides links to the Complainant’s competitors’ websites. As such, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith to intentionally divert traffic away from the Complainant’s website. \r\n\r\nIn addition to the Respondent’s commercial gain through remuneration for the sponsored content featured on the website connected to the Domain Name, the Complainant argues that such use of the Domain Name by the Respondent to promote access to the Complainant’s competitors is causing great damage to the Complainant by misleading both present and also potential new clients.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant states on 28 May 2019 the Complainant’s Attorney sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent requesting the voluntary surrender of the Domain Name. The Respondent failed to provide a response to such letter or to comply with the voluntary transfer request made therein. \r\n",
    "rights": "The Panel is satisfied the Complainant has shown the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy)..",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Panel is satisfied the Complainant has shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The Panel is satisfied the Complainant has shown the 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 the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, being represented by Perani Pozzi Associati, first filed its complaint in relation to the Domain Name with the Czech Arbitration Court (the ‘CAC’) on 19 July 2019. However, due to the Registrar name shield protection the Complainant was unable to initially sufficiently identify the Respondent. A subsequent Registrar Verification however confirmed the identity of the Respondent as Jacob Princewell based in Umuahia, Nigeria. The Complainant then filed an amended complaint and the CAC formally commenced proceedings on 26 July 2019 and the Respondent was notified of the complaint accordingly.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent failed to submit a response within the time frame required in the complaint or at all, and a Notification of Respondent’s Default was issues by the CAC on 21 August 2019.\r\n\r\nHaving received a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality, the CAC appointed Steve Palmer of Palmer Biggs IP Solicitors as the Panel in the UDRP proceedings.\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Steve Palmer"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-09-03 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A (the ‘Complainant’) is the owner of a number of International and European Trade Mark registrations for INTESA SANPAOLO and\/or INTESA in various classes.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INTESASANPOLAO.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}