{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103706", "time_of_filling": "2021-04-06 10:30:52", "domain_names": [ "LNTESASANPAOLO-GRUPPO.COM" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.", "respondent": [ "BILAL CIRO" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is an Italian Banking group that was established on 1 January 2007 as the result of a merger between Banca Intesa S.p.A and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A. The Complainant operates in retail, corporate and wealth management, and is amongst the top banking groups in the euro zone with a market capitalisation exceeding 41.5 billion euro. The Complainant offers its services to approximately 14.7 million customers and has 5,300 branches distributed throughout Italy with a market share of more than 21% in most Italian regions. The Complainant also has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe and internationally. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of a number of trade marks including an international registration for the ‘INTESA SANPAOLO’ word mark and European trade mark registrations for 'INTESA SANPAOLO' and ‘GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO’.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names which feature the ‘INTESA SANPAOLO’ and ‘GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO’ word marks. All such domain names are linked to the Complainant’s official website http:\/\/www.intesasanpaolo.com. \r\n\r\nThe Domain Name was registered by Bilal Ciro (the ‘Respondent’) on 21 August 2020. The website attached to the Domain Name is non active and merely features the following message ‘Sito web manutenzione’ meaning ‘Website under maintenance’.", "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 ('the Domain Name').", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical, or at least confusingly similar to its registered trade marks for ‘INTESA SANPAOLO’ and ‘GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO’. \r\n\r\nFurther, the Complainant argues that the Domain Name is an example of 'typosquatting' as the Domain Name exactly reproduces its well known trade mark 'INTESA SANPAOLO' with the substitution of the letter 'I' in the mark 'INTESA' with the letter 'L' along with the addition of the Italian term 'GRUPPO' meaning 'Group'. The Complainant also contends that the Domain Name is similar to the Complainant’s registered trade mark ‘GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO’.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name because the Complainant has not granted the Respondent a licence or authorisation to make use of the 'INTESA SANPAOLO' and\/or 'GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO' trade marks. Further the Complainant states that the 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 'LNTESASANPAOLO-GRUPPO'.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant contends that it cannot see any fair or non-commercial uses of the Domain Name present.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also contends that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that its registered trade marks 'INTESA SANPAOLO' and 'GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO' are distinctive and well known around the world and the Complainant argues that the fact the Respondent registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to its trade marks indicates that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trade marks at the time of registration of the Domain Name. \r\n\r\nFurther, the Complainant states that if the Respondent had carried out a basic google search of the words 'INTESA SANPAOLO' and 'GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO' the results would have provided obvious reference to the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant contends that there is a clear inference of knowledge of the Complainant’s trade marks on the part of the Respondent, and it is therefore more than likely that the Domain Name in issue would not have been registered if it were not for the Complainant’s trade marks. The Complainant argues this constitutes clear evidence of registration of the Domain Name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name is not used for any bone fide offerings and the Respondent has registered or acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Domain Name is not used for any bona fide offerings.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues passive holding of a domain name may, in appropriate circumstances, be consisted with a finding of bad faith, but also that panels have tended to make such findings in circumstances in which, for example, a complainant’s mark is well-known and there is no conceivable legitimate use that could be made of the domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant believes that given this is a case of typosquatting, the Respondent has likely registered the Domain Name for the purpose of ‘phishing’ in order to induce and divert the Complainant’s legitimate customers to its website and steal their money. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that there are no possible legitimate uses of the Domain Name, and argues that another aim of the Respondent might be to resell the Domain Name to the Complainant, which in itself represents evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. ", "rights": "The Panel is satisfied the Complainant has shown the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trade marks in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy). ", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Panel is satisfied the Complainant has shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy). ", "bad_faith": "The Panel is satisfied the Complainant has shown the 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 the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, being represented by itself, first filed its complaint in relation to the Domain Name with the Czech Arbitration Court (the ‘CAC’) on 31 March 2021. However, the Complainant had not been able to sufficiently identify the Respondent. Following a registrar verification, which identified the Respondent as Bilal Ciro located in Sanremo, Italy, the Complainant filed an amended complaint on 6 April 2021. The CAC then formally commenced proceedings on 6 April 2021 and the Respondent was notified of the complaint accordingly.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent failed to submit a response within the time frame required in the complaint or at all, and a ‘Notification of the Respondent’s Default’ was issued by the CAC on 28 April 2021.\r\n\r\nHaving received a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality, the CAC appointed Steve Palmer of Palmer Biggs IP Solicitors as the Panel in the UDRP proceedings. ", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Steve Palmer" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-05-12 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A (the ‘Complainant’) is the owner of a number of International and European Trade Mark registrations including for INTESA SANPAOLO and\/or GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO in various classes. ", "decision_domains": { "LNTESASANPAOLO-GRUPPO.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }