{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103942", "time_of_filling": "2021-07-30 10:02:01", "domain_names": [ "grupintesasanpạolo.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.", "respondent": [ "james right" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant, Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A., is the leading Italian banking group in different business areas such as retail, corporate and wealth management.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant holds several trademark registrations for “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO” and the Complainant also holds the domain names bearing “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO”.\r\n\r\nOn January 26, 2021; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name . The domain name is currently inactive.\r\n\r\nOn February 24, 2021; the Complainant’s attorneys sent a cease and desist letter requesting voluntarily transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant and the Respondent did not comply with such request.", "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": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n1. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known and distinctive trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO” as it bears the Complainant’s “GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO” trademark as a whole with the substitution of the letter “A” with an “Ạ” and deletion of the letters “P” and “O”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark and the present case is a clear example of typosquatting where the disputed domain name is a slight alphabetical variation of the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to earlier WIPO decision Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft v New York TV Tickets Inc, Case n. D2001-1314 – regarding the domain names and ”. In the mentioned case 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. WIPO jurisprudence offers many examples of confusing similarity brought about through easily made typing errors by an Internet user – particularly when the mark is another language from that of the user’s mother tongue.”\r\n\r\n2. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name and as the Respondent does not hold any trademark for “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also states that the Respondent is neither affiliated nor authorized by the Complainant in any way.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also alleges that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.\r\n\r\n3. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant indicates that the Respondent intentionally used a misspelled version of the Complainant’s trademarks in order to create a confusing similarity.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that considering the well-known status of the Complainant’s trademarks, the Respondent knew about the Complainant and its rights before the registration of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is not being used for any bona fide offering and this fact, not being used of the disputed domain name, alone is sufficient to prove the bad faith of the Respondent according to many WIPO UDRP decisions.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name has not been using by the Respondent and the passive holding of the disputed domain name demonstrates the bad faith of the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also alleges that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for phishing purposes.\r\nAccordingly, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant also mentions that the Respondent has been contacted with by sending a cease and desist letter requesting the voluntarily transfer of the disputed domain name yet the Respondent did not comply with this request.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.", "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": [ "Mrs Selma Ünlü" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-09-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the following:\r\n- the IR trademark INTESA SANPAOLO (registration n°920896) dated March 07, 2007;\r\n- the EU trademark INTESA SANPAOLO (registration n°5301999) dated June 18, 2007; and\r\n- the EU trademark GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO (registration n°5344544) dated July 06, 2007.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain names bearing the signs “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO” such as the domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .", "decision_domains": { "GRUPINTESASANPạOLO.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }