{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103296", "time_of_filling": "2020-09-23 09:44:05", "domain_names": [ "INTESASICUREZZAWEB.COM" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Perani Pozzi Associati", "respondent": [ "Salvatore Esposito" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant, Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A., is the leading Italian banking group in different business areas such as retail, corporate and wealth management.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant holds the IR and EU trademark registrations for “INTESA” and “INTESA SANPAOLO” (Registration n°793367, 920896, 12247979, 5301999) and the Complainant also holds domain names bearing “INTESA” and “INTESA SANPAOLO” such as , , , , , , , , , , , , , and .\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 31, 2020 and the domain name is currently inactive.\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": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A., is one of the top banking groups in the Euro zone with a market capitalisation exceeding 34,8 billion Euro and the undisputed leader in Italy in different business areas such as retail, corporate and wealth management.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant holds the IR and EU trademark registrations for the trademarks “INTESA” and “INTESA SANPAOLO” and also is the owner of several domain names bearing “INTESA” and “INTESA SANPAOLO”.\r\n\r\n\r\n1. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “INTESA” as it bears the Complainant’s well-known trademark as a whole.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the addition of the descriptive terms “SICUREZZA” which means “security” and “WEB” is not sufficient to abolish the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the “INTESA” trademark.\r\n\r\n\r\n2. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant states that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark “INTESA”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the Respondent did never use the disputed domain name and it demonstrates the lack of rights or legitimate interests.\r\n\r\n\r\n3. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Complainant’s trademarks are widely-known and that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA” and “INTESA SANPAOLO”. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also states that the disputed domain name is not being used for any bona fide offering and this fact, not being used of the disputed domain name, alone is sufficient to prove the bad faith of the Respondent according to many WIPO UDRP decisions. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant indicates that the Respondent might has the disputed domain name registered for phishing purposes since such similar attempts had occurred in the past. It was also stated that the disputed domain name which includes the identical of the Complainant’s trademark cannot be used for no purpose but to act like being the Complainant to obtain special information of the internet users who believe the disputed domain name belong to the Complainant and enters its passwords etc. \r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant also mentions that the Respondent has been contacted with by sending a cease and desist letter requesting the voluntary transfer of the disputed domain name yet there was not a response given by the Respondent.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO 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": [ "Mrs Selma Ünlü" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-11-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the IR trademarks INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO (Registration n° 793367, 920896) and the EU trademarks INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO (Registration n° 12247979, 5301999).\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain names bearing the signs “INTESA” and “INTESA SANPAOLO” such as , , , , , , , , , , , , , and .\r\n", "decision_domains": { "INTESASICUREZZAWEB.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }