{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102949",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-04-23 09:50:16",
    "domain_names": [
        "ISP-INTESASANPAOLO.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "lina santos"
    ],
    "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 protagonists 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.\r\n\r\nIntesa Sanpaolo is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 26,1 billion euro, and the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). Thanks to a network of approximately 3,800 branches capillary and well distributed throughout the Country, with market shares of more than 15% in most Italian regions, the Group offers its services to approximately 11,8 million customers. Intesa Sanpaolo has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1.000 branches and over 7,2 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 Complainant is the owner of several registrations for the trademarks “INTESA” and “INTESA SANPAOLO” and also the owner of several domain names bearing the signs “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”.\r\n\r\nOn January 3, 2020 the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is more than obvious that the disputed domain name is identical, or – at least – confusingly similar, to the Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”. As a matter of fact, ISP-INTESASANPAOLO.COM exactly reproduces Complainant’s well-known trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO”, with the mere addition of the term “ISP”, which represents the abbreviation of Complainant’s mentioned trademark.\r\n\r\nIn the view of Complainant, Respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name, and any use of the trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA” has to be authorized by the Complainant. Nobody has been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of Complainants knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as “ISP-INTESASANPAOLO”.\r\n\r\nLastly, Complainant cannot find any fair or non-commercial use of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was in the view of Complainant registered and is used in bad faith:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA” are distinctive and well-known all around the world. \r\n\r\nThe fact that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to them indicates that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark 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 wordings “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. \r\n \r\nThis 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 disputed domain name would not have been registered if it were not for Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThis is in the view of Complainant a clear evidence of registration of the domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the disputed domain name is not used for any bone fide offerings. More particularly, there are present circumstances indicating that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is connected to a website sponsoring, among others, banking and financial services, for whom the Complainant’s trademarks are registered and used. Consequently, 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 disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant deems that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to intentionally divert traffic away from the Complainant’s website.\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided, and 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": [
        "Jan Christian Schnedler, LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-05-16 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner, among others, of the following registrations for the trademarks “INTESA” and “INTESA SANPAOLO”:\r\n\r\n- International trademark registration n. 793367 “INTESA”, granted on September 4, 2002 and duly renewed, in class 36;\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, 41, 42;\r\n\r\n- EU trademark registration n. 12247979 “INTESA”, applied on October 23, 2013 and granted on March 5, 2014, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42; and\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\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner, among the others, of the following domain names bearing the signs “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”: INTESASANPAOLO.COM, .ORG, .EU, .INFO, .NET, .BIZ, INTESA-SANPAOLO.COM, .ORG, .EU, .INFO, .NET, .BIZ and INTESA.COM, INTESA.INFO, INTESA.BIZ, INTESA.ORG, INTESA.US, INTESA.EU, INTESA.CN, INTESA.IN, INTESA.CO.UK, INTESA.TEL, INTESA.NAME, INTESA.XXX, INTESA.ME. All of them are now connected to the official website http:\/\/www.intesasanpaolo.com of Complainant.\r\n\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ISP-INTESASANPAOLO.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}