{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103941", "time_of_filling": "2021-07-30 09:59:24", "domain_names": [ "banca-intesasanpaolo.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.", "respondent": [ "David Czinczenheim" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, Intesa Sanpaolo, is Italy's leading banking group. It has an extensive coverage there geographically and in terms of offerings and is among the eurozone's top banking groups with a market capitalisation of over €45 billion. The group also has a strong presence in central and eastern Europe, with a network of some 1,000 branches and over 7.2 million customers. The Complainant's international network specialized in supporting corporate customers comprises 25 countries, in particular in the Mediterranean area and in areas where Italian companies are most active such as in the United States, Russia, China and India.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant provides internet banking among its extensive offerings.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s representatives on 21 January 2021 sent the Respondent a cease and desist letter, asking for the voluntary transfer of the disputed domain name to their client. The letter remains unanswered.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nIt is more than obvious that the disputed domain name is identical or – at least – confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO”. As a matter of fact, the disputed domain name exactly reproduces the well-known trademark “BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO”.\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name, whereas any use of the trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO” must be authorized by the Complainant. The Complainant has authorized no one to use the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nNor does the disputed domain name correspond to the Respondent's own name and, to the best of the Complainant's knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as “BANCA-INTESASANPAOLO”.\r\n\r\nThere is no fair or non-commercial use being made of the disputed domain name, as is shown by the home page associated with it that is adduced in evidence in this proceeding. The home page redirects to a parking page offering the disputed domain name for sale.\r\n\r\nTHE DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe domain name was both registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO” 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.\r\n\r\nIf the Respondent had carried out even a basic Google search in respect of the strings “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO”, this would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant, as shown by an extract of a Google search performed by the Complainant and which it submits in evidence in support of this 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 Complainant’s trademark. This is clear evidence of registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is not used in connection with any bona fide offerings. More particularly, the circumstances indicate that the Respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to the Complainant or a competitor for a consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name (this being an instance demonstrating bad faith contained in para. 4(b)(i) of the Policy). The evidence of the disputed domain name's use referred to above redirects to a parking page where it is offered for sale.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to decisions of several previous panels in support of the above contentions, and remarks that, absent bad faith, it is not possible to understand what kind of use the Respondent could make of a domain name which exactly corresponds to the Complainant’s trademarks. These are moreover these trademarks employed by a major financial institution for providing online banking services over its domain names. In fact, the practice of diverting clients is a frequent practice in the realm of banking due to the high number of online banking users, as shown by several earlier ADR claims made by the Complainant itself (a list of which was submitted in evidence).\r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant draws attention to the fact that a cease and desist letter sent to the Respondent and asking him to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant voluntarily remains unanswered.\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.\r\n\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 that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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 that 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": [ "Kevin J. Madders" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-09-08 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner, among others, of the following registrations for the trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO”:\r\n\r\n- International trademark registration No. 920896 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, granted on 7 March 2007 and duly renewed in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42 under the Nice Classification (NCL);\r\n- EU trademark registration No. 5301999 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, granted on 18 June 2007 and duly renewed in NCL classes 35, 36 and 38; and\r\n- EU trademark registration No. 5302377 “BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO”, granted on 6 July 2007 and duly renewed in NCL classes 35, 36 and 38.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of the following domain names, among others, incorporating the marks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO”: . All of these domain names connect to the main website .\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the domain name on 7 December 2020.", "decision_domains": { "BANCA-INTESASANPAOLO.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }