{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103541",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-02-02 14:44:50",
    "domain_names": [
        "RIATTIVAZIONE-INTESA.ONLINE"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.",
    "respondent": [
        "omar nasr"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant (Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.) is a leading Italian banking group and also one of the protagonists in the European financial arena. The Complainant is the company resulting from the merger (effective as of 1 January 2007) between Banca Intesa S.p.A. and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A., two of the top Italian banking groups.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 26 May 2020 and is held by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) is automatically redirected to a third party website <grupposanpaolo.online> with no active content.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.",
    "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": "COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name contains the “INTESA” word element of the Complainant's trademarks in its entirety and thus they are almost identical (i.e. confusingly similar) to the Complainant’s trademarks since the domain name differs from the Complainant trademarks only by the descriptive Italian expression \"RIATTIVAZIONE'' (meaning ''reactivation\" in Italian).\r\n\r\nThus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.\r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n- The Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n- Furthermore, the domain name website has not been used for any legitimate or fair purposes.\r\n\r\n\r\nBAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- Seniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain name's registration and such trademarks are well known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered aware of the Complainant's trademarks when registering the disputed domain name due to well-known character thereof, which should have been checked by the Respondent by performing a simple internet search.\r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name (at the time of filing of the complaint) is not used for any bona fide offerings. More particularly, there are present circumstances indicating that, by using the domain name, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant\r\n\r\n- The use of misleading term RIATTIVAZIONE indicates that the disputed domain name might be intended for ''phishing'' purposes. Such practice consists of attracting customers to a web page which imitates the real page of the Complainant (i.e. bank website) with an intention to mislead such users and have them disclosed confidential information.\r\n\r\n- It is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks which enjoys strong reputation, plus other facts, such as above described unfair use of the disputed domain name, are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that registering a “phishing” website is perhaps the clearest evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith”, especially when it concerns trademarks of financial institutions that enjoy high level of notoriety and well-known character.\r\n\r\n- Complainant has tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist letter requesting that the Respondent voluntary transfers the disputed domain name to the Complainant, with which they did not comply.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant presents the following evidence that has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n- Information about the Complainant and its business;\r\n- Excerpts from various trademark databases regarding Complainant's trademarks and copies of certificates of registration of such trademarks;\r\n- Screenshots of the disputed domain name website evidencing its non-use;\r\n- Screenshots of Google search results for “INTESA SANPAOLO”;\r\n- A letter from Complainant to Respondent (dated 24 June 2020) requesting transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant;\r\n- Various WIPO ADR decisions concerning similar domain names disputes.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.",
    "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": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-03-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademarks containing word element \"INTESA\":\r\n\r\n(i)\tINTESA (word), International Trademark, filing (priority) date 4 September 2002, registration no. 793367, registered for services in class 36;\r\n\r\n(ii)\tINTESA (word), EU Trademark, filing (priority) date 23 October 2013, registration no. 12247979, registered for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;\r\n\r\n(iii) \tINTESA SANPAOLO, international Trademark, filing (priority) date 7 March 2007, registration no. 920896, registered for goods and services in classes 36;\r\n\r\n(iv)\tINTESA SANPAOLO, EU trademark, filing (priority) date 8 September 2006, registration no. 5301999, registered for goods and services in classes 35, 36, 38,\r\n\r\nbesides other national and international trademarks consisting of or containing the \"INTESA\" wording.\r\n(Collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term „INTESA\", such as <INTESASANPAOLO.COM (official website), INTESA.COM, INTESA.EU, INTESA.ORG> and others.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "RIATTIVAZIONE-INTESA.ONLINE": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}