{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103289",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-09-23 11:27:20",
    "domain_names": [
        "INTESASANPAOLO.PRO"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati",
    "respondent": [
        "david latter"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant 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 top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 34,8 billion euro, and the leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). Thanks to a network of approximately 3,700 branches capillary and well distributed throughout the Country, with market shares of more than 15% in most Italian regions, the Group offers its services to approximately 11,8 million customers. Intesa Sanpaolo has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1.000 branches and over 7,2 million customers. Moreover, the 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, among others, of the following registrations for the trademarks “INTESA” and “INTESA SANPAOLO\".\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner, among the others, of the following domain names bearing the signs “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”: INTESASANPAOLO.COM, .ORG, .EU, .INFO, .NET, .BIZ, INTESA-SANPAOLO.COM, .ORG, .EU, .INFO, .NET, .BIZ and 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 now connected to the official website http:\/\/www.intesasanpaolo.com.\r\n\r\nOn May 8, 2020 the Respondent registered the domain name INTESASANPAOLO.PRO.\r\n\r\nIn the view of Complainant it is more than obvious that the disputed domain name at issue is identical, or – at least – confusingly similar, to the Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”. As a matter of fact, INTESASANPAOLO.PRO exactly reproduces the well-known trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO”.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name, and any use of the trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA” has to be authorized by the Complainant. Nobody has been authorized or licensed by the above-mentioned banking group to use the domain name at issue.\r\n\r\nComplianant states that 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 “INTESASANPAOLO”.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was in the view of Complainant registered and is used in bad faith:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA” are distinctive and well known all around the world. 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 trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nIn addition, if the Respondent had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wordings “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. The Complainant submits, as Annex D, an extract of a Google search in support of its allegation. This raises a clear inference of knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark on the part of the Respondent. Therefore, it is more than likely that the domain name at issue would not have been registered if it were not for Complainant’s trademark. This is a clear evidence of registration of the domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the disputed domain name is not used for any bone fide offerings. More particularly, there are present circumstances indicating that, by using the disputed 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 (par. 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contests that first of all, several services can be detected, but not in good faith: in fact, the disputed domain name is connected to a website sponsoring, among others, banking and financial services, for whom the Complainant’s trademarks are registered and used. \r\n\r\nConsequently, Internet users, while searching for information on the Complainant’s services, are confusingly led to the websites of the Complainant’s competitors, sponsored on the websites connected to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant deems that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to intentionally divert traffic away from the Complainant’s web site.\r\n\r\nSeveral WIPO decisions stated that the registration and use of a domain name to re-direct internet users to web sites of competing organizations constitute bad faith registration and use under the Policy. \r\n\r\nThe current use of the disputed domain name, which allows accessing to the web sites of the Complainant’s competitors, also through the Complainant’s trademark, causes, as well, great damages to the latter, due to the misleading of their present clients and to the loss of potential new ones. So, the Respondent’s conduct is in the view of Complainant even worse. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent’s commercial gain is in the view of Complainant evident, since it is obvious that the Respondent’s sponsoring activity is being remunerated.\r\n\r\nIt is no coincidence that this speculation has involved a big financial institution such as Intesa Sanpaolo. In fact, the diversion practice in banking realm is very frequent due to the high number of online banking users. In fact, it has also to be pointed out that the Complainant has already been part of other WIPO Cases where the Panelists ordered the transfer or the cancellation of the disputed domain names, detecting bad faith in the registrations. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\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": [
        "Jan Christian Schnedler, LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-10-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner, among others, of the following registrations for the trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO”:\r\n- International trademark registration n. 920896 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, granted on March 07, 2007 and duly renewed, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42, covering also Australia, China, United States of America, Japan, Russian Federation;\r\n- EU trademark registration n. 5301999 “INTESA SANPAOLO applied on September 08, 2006, granted on June 18, 2007 and duly renewed, in classes 35, 36 and 38;\r\n- EU trademark registration n. 5421177 “INTESA SANPAOLO & deviceargues applied on October 27, 2006, granted on November 5, 2007 and duly renewed, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.\r\n Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the following domain names bearing the sign “INTESA SANPAOLO”: “INTESASANPAOLO.COM, .ORG, .EU, .INFO, .NET, .BIZ” and INTESA-SANPAOLO.COM, .ORG, .EU, .INFO, .NET, .BIZ”. All of them are now connected to the official website http:\/\/<www.intesasanpaolo.com>.  \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INTESASANPAOLO.PRO": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}