{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103004",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-04-22 09:38:22",
    "domain_names": [
        "INTESAVRIFICADATI.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "Whois Privacy Corp."
    ],
    "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\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 31 October 2019 and is held by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) is automatically redirected to a third party website <care-protect.online> with a malicious content.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain names to the 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": "The Parties' contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that: \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name contains  the “INTESA” word element of the Complainant's trademarks in its entirety and thus they are almost identical (i.e. confusingly similar) to the Complainant’s trademarks since the domain names differ from the Complainant trademarks only by the descriptive and incorrect Italian expression \"VRIFICA DATI'' (instead of ''VERIFICA DATI'', meaning ''DATA VERIFICATION'' in Italian).\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 name. \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 the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n-\tFurthermore, the domain name website has 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 name's 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 name 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 name (at the time of filing of the complaint) is not used for any bone fide offerings. More particularly, there are present circumstances indicating that, by using the domain name, 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\r\n-\tThe domain name has been blocked by Google Safe Browsing through a warning page. In the light of the foregoing, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered for ''phishing'' purposes, in order to defraud visitors into providing financial information.\r\n\r\n-\tEven excluding any ''phishing'' purposes, the disputed domain name was registered and used with the sole purpose of selling the disputed domain name to the Complainant, which constitutes an evidence of the registration and use in bad faith, according to par. 4(b)(i).\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 “phishing” website is perhaps the clearest evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith”, especially when it concerns trademarks of financial institutions that enjoy high level of notoriety and well-known character.\r\n- \tComplainant has tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist letter requesting that the Respondent voluntary transfers the disputed domain name to the Complainant, with which they did not comply. \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;\r\n-\tScreenshots of Google search results for “INTESA SANPAOLO”;\r\n-\tA letter from Complainant to Respondent (dated 27 November 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\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": "2020-06-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademarks containing word element \"INTESA\":\r\n\r\n(i)\tINTESA (word), International Trademark, filing (priority) date 4 September 2002, registration no. 793367, registered for services in class 36;\r\n\r\n(ii)\tINTESA (word), EU Trademark, filing (priority) date 23 October 2013, registration no. 12247979, registered for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;\r\n\r\n(iii) \tINTESA SANPAOLO, international Trademark, filing (priority) date 7 March 2007, registration no. 920896, registered for goods and services in classes 36;\r\n\r\n(iv)\tINTESA SANPAOLO, EU trademark, filing (priority) date 8 September 2006, registration no. 5301999, registered for goods and services in classes 35, 36, 38,\r\n\r\nbesides other national and international trademarks consisting of or containing the \"INTESA\" wording.\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\", such as INTESASANPAOLO.COM (official website), INTESA.COM, INTESA.EU, INTESA.ORG and others. \r\n\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INTESAVRIFICADATI.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}