{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103188",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-07-29 16:48:36",
    "domain_names": [
        "INTESAPOALO.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "tonkin katia sonia"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Complainant states that it is “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 29,8 billion euro, and the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management)”; that it has “a network of approximately 3,700 branches” serving “approximately 11,8 million customers… 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 Disputed Domain Name was created on April 29, 2020, and is not being used in connection with an active website.\r\n\r\nComplainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the INTESA SANPAOLO Trademark because, inter alia, the domain name “exactly reproduces” the INTESA SANPAOLO Trademark “with the mere omission of the mark’s verbal portion ‘SAN’ and the inversion of letters ‘A’ and ‘O’ in the term ‘PAOLO’ (a clear example of typosquatting).”\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “[n]obody has been authorized or licensed by the above-mentioned banking group to use the domain name at issue”; the Disputed Domain Name “does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of our knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as ‘INTESAPOALO’”; and “we do not find any fair or non-commercial uses of the domain name at stake.”\r\n\r\nParagraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, the INTESA SANPAOLO Trademark “is distinctive and well known all around the world”; “[t]he 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”; although the Disputed Domain Name “is not connected to any web site,… 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”; “[t]he risk of a wrongful use of the domain name 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”; and Respondent did not reply to a cease and desist letter sent by Complainant’s attorneys on June 3, 2020.\r\n",
    "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 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 UDRP).",
    "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 UDRP).",
    "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 UDRP).",
    "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": "2020-08-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant states, and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of certain trademark registrations that consist of or contain the mark INTESA SANPAOLO (the “INTESA SANPAOLO Trademark”), including Int’l Reg. No. 920,896 for the mark INTESA SANPAOLO (registered March 7, 2007) and EU Reg. No. 5,301,999 for the mark INTESA SANPAOLO (registered June 18, 2007).",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INTESAPOALO.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}