{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103059",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-05-14 11:40:07",
    "domain_names": [
        "clienti-intesasanpaolo.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "Zikow Maks"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nComplainant 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 leading banking groups in the Euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 26.1 billion euro. With market shares of more than 15% in most Italian regions, the Intesa Sanpaolo offers its services to approximately 11,8 million customers in Italy. Intesa Sanpaolo also has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1,000 branches and over 7.2 million customers. Moreover, its international network specialised in supporting corporate customers is present in 25 countries, including the United States, Russia, China and India.\r\n\r\nComplainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized by Complainant in any way to use the trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO”. Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with Respondent. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that Respondent is not related in any way to Complainant’s business. The disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent, and the Respondent is not commonly known as “CLIENTI-INTESASANPAOLO”. According to Complainant, there is no fair or non-commercial use of the disputed domain name because it does not resolve to an active website.\r\n\r\nComplainant further contends that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Its trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO” is distinctive and well known around the world. The fact that Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to this distinctive brand name indicates that Respondent had positive knowledge of Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. In addition, if Respondent had performed even a basic Google search in respect of the phrase “INTESASANPAOLO”, the search results would have shown obvious references to Complainant.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "rights": "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 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.\r\n\r\nAccording to Article 11(a) of the Rules, “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”.\r\n\r\nThe language of the Registration Agreement is Dutch. The Complainant, however, has requested that the language of the proceeding be English instead of Dutch. \r\n\r\nThe Panel uses its discretionary authority to decide that the language of the proceedings shall be English for the following reasons: \r\n\r\n(a) Both the Complainant and the Respondent are located in Italy. While it would be understandable to conduct proceedings between two Italian Parties in Italian language, it is unclear why it would make any sense to conduct the proceedings in Dutch, which is usually not considered to be a “lingua franca”. It seems much more reasonable to conduct the proceedings in English, which is the most common foreign language in Italy (and more generally in Europe).\r\n\r\n(b) The disputed domain name features the gTLD <.com>, which has a global connotation and stands for the English word “commerce”. English being the main language of international business, it seems that the disputed domain name was intended to reach not only a Dutch (or Italian) speaking public (for which a domain name under the corresponding ccTLDs <.nl> (or <.it>) would have been more appropriate).\r\n\r\n(c) The Complainant has submitted its Complaint and supporting evidence in English. If the Complainant were required to submit all documents in Dutch, the administrative proceeding would be unduly delayed and the Complainant would have to incur substantial expenses for translation.\r\n\r\n(d) The Respondent has neither submitted any objection to the use of English language, nor reacted in any other way which would indicate that the Respondent is unable to communicate in English.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Dr. Thomas Schafft"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-06-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns the following “INTESA SANPAOLO” trademark registrations:\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, 38, 41 and 42; and\r\n-- EU trademark registration n. 5301999 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, granted on June 18, 2007 and duly renewed, in classes 35, 36 and 38.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on February 16, 2020, i.e. the Complainant’s trademark registrations cited above predate the registration of the disputed domain name. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "CLIENTI-INTESASANPAOLO.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}