{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103012",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-04-30 09:45:36",
    "domain_names": [
        "INTESASANPAOLOSONDAGGI.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "Vovici Corporation"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that it is the leading Italian banking group.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it is the company resulting from the merger between Banca Intesa S.p.A. and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A., two of the top Italian banking groups.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that it is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 26,1 billion euro.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant declares that it has a network of approximately 3.800 branches throughout Italy and has approximately 11,8 million customers.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1.000 branches and over 7,2 million customers.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant's 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 SANPAOLO\" and \"INTESA\".\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner, among others, of the following domain names bearing the signs “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”: INTESASANPAOLO.COM, INTESASANPAOLO.ORG, INTESASANPAOLO.EU, INTESASANPAOLO.INFO, INTESASANPAOLO.NET, INTESASANPAOLO.BIZ, INTESA-SANPAOLO.COM, INTESA-SANPAOLO.ORG, INTESA-SANPAOLO.EU, INTESA-SANPAOLO.INFO, INTESA-SANPAOLO.NET, INTESA-SANPAOLO.BIZ, 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 pointing to the main Complainant’s website.\r\n\r\nOn September 14, 2011, the Respondent registered the domain name INTESASANPAOLOSONDAGGI.COM.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that it is more than obvious that the disputed domain name is identical, or confusingly similar, to the Complainant’s trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the disputed domain name exactly reproduces the well-known trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO”, with the mere addition of the Italian descriptive term \"SONDAGGI\", which means “SURVEYS”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that any use of the trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA” has to be authorized by the Complainant and that nobody has been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and that, to the best of its knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as “INTESASANPAOLOSONDAGGI”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant highlights the passive holding of the disputed domain name and asserts that it does not find any fair or non-commercial uses of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA” are distinctive and well known all around the world. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the 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 trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that if the Respondent had carried out even a basic Google search in respect of the words “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that this fact raises a clear inference of the Respondent's knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant assumes that it is more than likely that the disputed domain name was registered with the Complainant’s trademarks in mind.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offering of goods or services. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that some circumstances indicate that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that countless UDRP decisions confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party’s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that the consensus view of WIPO UDRP panellists is that passive holding of a disputed domain name may, in appropriate circumstances, be consistent with a finding of bad faith. In particular, the Complainant notes that panels have tended to make such findings in circumstances in which, for example, a complainant’s mark is well-known, and there is no conceivable use that could be made of the disputed domain name that would not amount to an infringement of the complainant’s trade mark rights.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that it has demonstrated the renown of its trademarks and that it is objectively not possible to understand what kind of use the Respondent could make with a domain name which is so similar to the Complainant’s domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it has already been targeted by some cases of phishing in the past few years. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that, even excluding any “phishing” purposes or other illicit use of the domain name in the present case, no other possible legitimate use of the disputed domain name can be found.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the Respondent could also try to resell the disputed domain name to the Complainant, and this fact would represent an evidence of the registration and use in bad faith, according to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that 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": [
        "Michele Antonini"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-06-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registrant, among others, of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- International trademark registration No. 920896 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, registered on March 7, 2007, for goods and services in classes  9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;\r\n\r\n- International trademark registration No. 793367 “INTESA”, registered on September 4, 2002, for goods and services in class 36;\r\n\r\n- EU trademark registration No. 5301999 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, registered on June 18, 2007, for goods and services in classes 35, 36 and 38;\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on September 14, 2011.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INTESASANPAOLOSONDAGGI.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}