{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103765",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-05-03 09:33:06",
    "domain_names": [
        "INTESAESANPAOLO.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.",
    "respondent": [
        "Milen  Radumilo"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "According to the provided information Complainant is a leading Italian banking group. It is among the top banking groups in the euro zone with a network of approximately 4,100 branches. Moreover, the international network specialized in supporting corporate customers is present in 26 countries, in particular in the Mediterranean area and those areas where Italian companies are most active. Its principal website is “www.intesasanpaolo.com”.  \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <intesaesanpaolo.com> was registered on 14 August 2020. The disputed domain name currently does not resolve to an active website. \r\nThe trademark registrations of Complainant have been issued prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nAccording to Complainant the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks as it is almost identical to Complainant’s well-known trademark INTESA SANPAOLO with the mere addition of letter “e”. \r\n\r\nAccording to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Nobody has been authorized or licensed by Complainant to use the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of Respondent. \r\n\r\nAccording to Complainant the disputed domain name is registered and used in bad faith. Complainant’s trademark INTESA SANPAOLO is distinctive. The fact that Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to the trademark indicates that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. It is more than likely that the disputed domain name would not have been registered if it was not for Complainant’s trademark. \r\nThe disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings, and it is currently not connected to any web site. Complainant asserts that countless UDRP decisions confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party’s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use.\r\nIn addition, Complainant submits that the risk of wrongful use of the disputed domain name issue is high in the present case, since Complainant has already been targeted by some cases of phishing in the past few years. Such a practice consists of attracting customers of a bank to a web page which imitates the real page of the bank, with a view to having customers disclose confidential information like a credit card or bank account number, for the purpose of unlawfully charging such bank accounts or withdrawing money out of them. It happened that some clients of Complainant have received e-mail messages asking, by the means of web pages which were very similar to the Complainant’s ones, the sensitive data of the Clients, like user ID, password etc. Then, some of the Clients have been cheated out of their savings.\r\n\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 name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n",
    "rights": "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 Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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": "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": [
        "Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-06-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant is the owner of multiple trademarks including the European Union trademark INTESA SANPAOLO, number 005301999, registration date 18 June 2007. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INTESAESANPAOLO.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}