{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103494", "time_of_filling": "2021-01-05 13:02:28", "domain_names": [ "INTESASANPAOLLO.WEBSITE", "INTESASANPAOLLO.SPACE", "INTESASANPAOLLO.SITE", "INTESASANPAOLLO.HOST" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.", "respondent": [ "Artem Pavlov" ], "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, formed as a result of the merger in 2007 between Banca Intesa S.p.A. and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A., two of the top Italian banking groups. The market capitalisation of the Complainant exceeds 37.4 billion Euro, and it has a network of 5360 branches and 14.6 million customers in Italy. The Complainant has a strong presence in Central and Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1000 branches and over 7.2 million customers. The international network of the Complainant specialised in supporting corporate customers is present in 26 countries in the Mediterranean area, the United States, Russia, China and India.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s official website is located at the domain name .\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain names on 13 April 2020. Each of them currently resolves to a parking webpage of the Registrar.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that on 28 May 2020 it sent to the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter, but the Respondent did not respond.\r\n", "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 names.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INTESA SANPAOLO trademark, as they exactly reproduce the trademark with the mere addition of the letter “L”, which makes them a clear example of typosquatting.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant submits that it has never authorized the Respondent to use the INTESA SANPAOLO trademark, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and is not making any fair or non-commercial use of them. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. It maintains that the INTESA SANPAOLO trademark is distinctive and well known around the world, and the fact that the Respondent has registered four domain names that are confusingly similar to it, indicates that it had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. The Complainant submits that they have not been used for any bona fide offerings. Rather, the circumstances of the case indicate that the Respondent has registered or acquired the domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring them to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain names. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that the disputed domain names are connected to a website without particular active contents. According to it, there is no conceivable use that could be made of the disputed domain names that would not amount to an infringement of the Complainant’s trademark rights, since the disputed domain names exactly correspond to the Complainant’s well-known INTESA SANPAOLO trademark and the Complainant’s domain names used by it to provide online banking services.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the risk of a wrongful use of the disputed domain names is even higher in the present case, since the Complainant has already been targeted by some cases of phishing in the past few years. Some clients of the Complainant have received e-mail messages asking for their sensitive data. In the present case, the Complainant believes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with a phishing purpose, in order to induce and divert the Complainant’s legitimate customers to its website and steal their money since the disputed domain names are an example of typosquatting.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.", "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.\r\n\r\nAccording to the information provided by the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names is Russian. Under paragraph 11 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 Complainant requests English to be the language of the proceeding, with the arguments that the Complainant is an Italian company, while the Respondent is Russian, that the Complaint is in English, a third international language comprehensible to a wide range of Internet users worldwide, including the ones living in Italy and in Russia. The Complainant notes that the spirit of Paragraph 11 of the Rules is to ensure fairness in the selection of language, and English seems to be the fair language in the present proceeding. The Respondent has not objected to the Complainant’s request on the language of the proceeding.\r\n\r\nThe above satisfies the Panel that the Respondent would not be disadvantaged if the language of the proceeding is English, and is satisfied that using this language in this proceeding would be fair and efficient. Therefore, in exercise of its powers under paragraph 11 of the Rules, the Panel decides that the language of this administrative proceeding will be English. At the same time, the Panel will take into account the evidence in the case file that is in the Russian language.\r\n", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Assen Alexiev" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-02-16 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations for the sign “INTESA SANPAOLO” (the “INTESA SANPAOLO trademark”):\r\n\r\n- the International trademark INTESA SANPAOLO with registration No.920896, registered on 7 March 2007 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42; and\r\n\r\n- the European Union trademark INTESA SANPAOLO with registration No.5301999, registered on 18 June 2007 for goods and services in International Classes 35, 36 and 38.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "INTESASANPAOLLO.WEBSITE": "TRANSFERRED", "INTESASANPAOLLO.SPACE": "TRANSFERRED", "INTESASANPAOLLO.SITE": "TRANSFERRED", "INTESASANPAOLLO.HOST": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }