{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103958", "time_of_filling": "2021-08-04 09:59:59", "domain_names": [ "ubi-banca.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.", "respondent": [ "linhai bo" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\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 January 1, 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 45,3 billion euro, and the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). Thanks to a network of approximately 4,700 branches capillary and well distributed throughout the Country, with market shares of more than 19 % in most Italian regions, the Group offers its services to approximately 13,5 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 25 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\nUBI Banca (Unione di Banche Italiane) was established on April 1, 2007 from the merger between Banche Popolari Unite and Banca Lombarda e Piemontese. As from August 5, 2020 UBI Banca is part of the Intesa Sanpaolo Group and involves a multiregional coverage with 1,565 branches in Italy and an international presence aimed at customer needs. UBI Banca is the fifth largest banking company in Italy by number of branches.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner, among the others, of the following domain names bearing the sign “UBI BANCA”: , , , (all of them are now connected to the official website https:\/\/www.ubibanca.com\/ and ).\r\n\r\nOn May 29, 2021 the Respondent registered the domain name .\r\n\r\nThe domain name at issue is identical, or – at least – confusingly similar, to the Complainant’s trademark “UBI BANCA”. exactly reproduces the well-known trademark “UBI BANCA”.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name, and any use of the trademark “UBI BANCA” has to be authorized by the Complainant. Nobody has been authorized or licensed by the above-mentioned banking group to use the domain name at issue.\r\n\r\nThe domain name at stake does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of our knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as “UBI-BANCA”.\r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant did not find any fair or non-commercial uses of the domain name at stake.\r\n\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark “UBI BANCA” is distinctive and well known all around the world. The fact that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to “UBI BANCA” 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 wording “UBI BANCA”, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. The Complainant submits 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 domain name at issue would not have been registered if it were not for Complainant’s trademark. This is a clear evidence of registration of the domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the contested 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 (par. 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).\r\n\r\nFirst of all, several services can be detected, but not in good faith: in fact, the disputed domain name is now connected to a web site containing pornographic images, videos and links. \r\n\r\nAs it can be easily noted, the website contains several sponsored links offering pornographic items. Therefore, there is a clear commercial gain for the owner of the domain name, who is trading on the reputation of Intesa Sanpaolo. In fact, Internet users, while looking for Intesa Sanpaolo’s website in order to get some information on its banking services, may chance upon the Respondent’s website. Moreover, the Respondent’s conduct is evidently causing dilution and tarnishment to the Complainant’s marks and image.\r\n\r\nThe fact that the disputed domain name is connected to a pornographic website is a clear indication that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. As concluded in several WIPO cases (see, among others, Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, WIPO Case No. D2000-0370; Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary Source, WIPO Case No. D2000-0362; Dell Computer Corporation v. RaveClub Berlin, WIPO Case No. D2002-0601; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Seweryn Nowak, WIPO Case No. D2003-0022), the redirection to pornographic sites from a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark is evidence of bad faith. In WIPO Case No. D2003-0022, for example, the Panel stated that «it is commonly understood, under WIPO case law, that, whatever the motivation of Respondent, the diversion of the domain names to a pornographic site is itself certainly consistent with the finding that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith».\r\n\r\nIn addition, it must be underlined that – according to the “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, 3rd Edition (\"WIPO Overview 3.0\")”, par. 3.12 – “using a domain name to tarnish a complainant’s mark (e.g., by posting false or defamatory content, including for commercial purposes) may constitute evidence of a respondent’s bad faith” and this surely includes adult contents, considering that the previous “WIPO Overview 2.0” (at par. 3.11) stated that “Intentional tarnishment of a complainant's trademark may in certain specific circumstances constitute evidence of registration and\/or use of a domain name in bad faith. […] Tarnishment in this context normally refers to such conduct as linking pornographic images or wholly inappropriate information to an unrelated trademark”.\r\n\r\nAs clearly underlined in WIPO Case No. D2003-0557; Miroglio S.p.A. v. Mr. Alexander Albert W. Gore, the consequences for Complainant “are potentially catastrophic, should even a minority of Internet users come to believe that Complainant is actually associated with pornography”. As the Panel stated in WIPO Case No. D2000-0079; Motorola, Inc. v. NewGate Internet, Inc., “while many adult sex sites are perfectly legal and constitute bona fide offerings of goods or services, the use of somebody else’s trademark as a domain name (or even as a meta-tag) clearly does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services when the website owner has no registered or common law rights to the mark, since the only reason to use the trademark as a domain name or meta-tag is to attract customers who were not looking for an adult sex site, but were instead looking for the products or services associated with the trademark. Such use of a trademark can create customer confusion or dilution of the mark, which is precisely what trademark laws are meant to prevent. And actions that create, or tend to create, violations of the law can hardly be considered to be bona fide”.\r\n\r\nIt is no coincidence that this speculation has involved a big financial institution such as Intesa Sanpaolo. In fact, the diversion practice in banking realm is very frequent due to the high number of online banking users. In fact, it has also to be pointed out that the Complainant has already been part of other WIPO Cases where the panelists ordered the transfer or the cancellation of the disputed domain names, detecting bad faith in the registrations.\r\n\r\nIn the light of the above, the third and final element necessary for finding that the Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration and use has been established.", "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": "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": [ "Arthur Fouré" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-08-28 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- International trademark registration n. 914379 “UBI BANCA”, granted on January 15, 2007 and duly renewed, covering services in international classes 35, 36 and 41;\r\n\r\n- International trademark registration n. 1489309 “UBI BANCA”, granted on February 15, 2019, covering services in international classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 41.", "decision_domains": { "UBI-BANCA.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }