{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103617", "time_of_filling": "2021-03-02 09:32:35", "domain_names": [ "INTESASANPA0LO.COM" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.", "respondent": [ "Carmela D'ambrosio" ], "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 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\nIntesa Sanpaolo is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 35.1 billion euro, and the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). Thanks to a network of approximately 5,300 branches capillary and well distributed throughout the Country, with market shares of more than 21% in most Italian regions, the Group offers its services to approximately 14.7 million customers. Intesa Sanpaolo has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1,000 branches and over 7.1 million customers. Moreover, the international network specialised in supporting corporate customers is present in 26 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 registered on 22 December 2020.\r\n\r\nThe Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not filed a Response.", "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\r\n\r\nThe Complainant made the following contentions:\r\n \r\nThe Complainant argues that it is more than obvious that the disputed domain name is identical or – at least – confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks \"INTESA SANPAOLO\" and \"INTESA\". As a matter of fact, exactly reproduces the well-known trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO”, with the mere substitution of the letter “O” with the number “0” in the mark’s verbal portion “PAOLO”. In view of the Complainant, this represents a clear example of typosquatting.\r\n\r\nIn support of the above, the Complainant draws the Panel’s attention to WIPO decision Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft v New York TV Tickets Inc, Case n. D2001-1314 – regarding the domain names and in which the Panel considered such domain names as being confusingly similar and a clear example of “a case of ‘typosquatting’ where the domain name is a slight alphabetical variation from a famous mark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name, and any use of the trademark \"INTESA SANPAOLO\" and \"INTESA\" has to be authorized by the Complainant, whereas nobody has been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as \"INTESASANPA0LO\".\r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant does not find any fair or non-commercial uses of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nTurning to the bad faith argument, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain is currently passively held. However, it was registered and is used in bad faith. Besides, the Complainant underlines that the webpage connected to the disputed domain name is currently blocked by Google Safe Browsing because of suspected phishing activity.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also contends that its 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. In 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 submitted 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 disputed domain name would not have been registered if it were not for the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant argues that this is clear evidence of the registration of the domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is not used for any bona 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 (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings, considering that the same is connected to a website which has been blocked by Google Safe Browsing through a warning page. The Complainant therefore argues that it is clear that the main purpose of the Respondent was to use the above website for “phishing” financial information in an attempt to defraud the Complainant’s customers and that Google promptly stopped the illicit activity carried out by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant then refers to numerous UDRP decisions which defined phishing as a form of Internet fraudulent activity (WIPO Case No. D2004-0237 and WIPO Case No. D2005-0251); and which came to the conclusion that the “use of a disputed domain name for the purpose of defrauding Internet users by the operation of a ‘phishing’ website is perhaps the clearest evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith” (in particular WIPO Case No. D2012-2093, WIPO Case No. D2006-0614, WIPO Case No. D2005-0871 and WIPO Case No. D2006-0228).\r\n\r\nPursuant to the Complainant, even excluding any current \"phishing\" purposes or other illicit use of the disputed domain name, the Complainant could find any other possible legitimate use of INTESANPA0LO.COM anyway. The sole further aim of the owner of the disputed domain name might be to resell it to the Complainant, which represents, in any case, an evidence of the registration and use in bad faith, according to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.", "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": [ "Mgr. Vojtěch Chloupek" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-04-08 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the following registrations for the trademarks \"INTESA SANPAOLO\" and \"INTESA\":\r\n\r\n- the international trademark registration No. 920896 for \"INTESA SANPAOLO\", registered since 7 March 2007 for the classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42;\r\n\r\n- the EU trademark registration No. 5301999 for \"INTESA SANPAOLO\", applied on 8 September 2006, granted on 18 June 2007, for the classes 35, 36 and 38;\r\n\r\n- the international trademark registration No. 793367 for \"INTESA\", registered since 4 September 2002 for class 36; and\r\n\r\n- the EU trademark registration No. 12247979 for \"INTESA\", applied on 23 October 2013 and granted on 5 March 2014, for the classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.\r\n\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\": , and , , , , , , , , , , , , . All of them are now connected to the official website .", "decision_domains": { "INTESASANPA0LO.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }