{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103104",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-06-16 09:02:17",
    "domain_names": [
        "INTESASANPALO.INFO",
        "INTESANPAOLO.INFO"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "ms tonkin katia sonia"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Complainant states that it “the leading Italian banking group and also one of the protagonists in the European financial arena”; that it “is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 27,2 billion euro, and the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management)”; that it has “approximately 3,700 branches” in Italy; and that it “offers its services to approximately 11,8 million customers” in Italy.\r\n\r\nComplainant is the registrant of and uses the domain name <intesasanpaolo.com> in connection with its “official website.”\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states, inter alia, that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the INTESA Trademark because they “exactly reproduce the well-known trademark ‘INTESA SANPAOLO’”; the Disputed Domain Name <intesasanpalo.info> merely omits a letter “o” from the same trademark; and the Disputed Domain Name <intesanpaolo.info> merely omits the letters “s” and “a” from the same trademark.\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names because, inter alia, Complainant has not “authorized or licensed” Respondent to use the INTESA Trademark; the Disputed Domain Names “do not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of [Complainant’s] knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as ‘INTESASANPALO’ and ‘INTESANPAOLO’”; and Complainant “do[es] not find any fair or non-commercial uses of the domain names at stake.”\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith because, inter alia, the INTESA Trademark is “distinctive and well known all around the world”; “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”; “[t]he risk of a wrongful use of the domain names at issue is even higher in the present case, since the Complainant has already been targeted by some cases of phishing in the past few years”; “Complainant believes that the current owner registered the disputed domain names with the “phishing” purpose, in order to induce and divert the Complainant’s legitimate customers to its website and steal their money and the above could be easily verified given the particular nature of the disputed domain names”; and Respondent did not reply to a demand letter from Complainant sent on April 3, 2020.  ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Names.",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant response has been filed.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Names are 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 Names (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 Names have been registered and are 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": [
        "Douglas M. Isenberg"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-07-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant states, and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of multiple registrations for the trademarks INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO, including Int’l Reg. No. 793,367 for INTESA (registered September 4, 2002); and Int’l Reg. No. 920896 for INTESA SANPAOLO (registered March 7, 2007).  These marks are referred to hereafter as the “INTESA Trademark.”",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INTESASANPALO.INFO": "TRANSFERRED",
        "INTESANPAOLO.INFO": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}