{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104208", "time_of_filling": "2021-12-02 09:37:42", "domain_names": [ "INTESASANPAOLO-SERVICE.COM" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.", "respondent": [ "federico amico" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A., a 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 47,8 billion euro, and the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). Thanks to a network of approximately 4,200 branches capillary and well distributed throughout Italy, with market shares of more than 17% 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\nThe Complainant is the owner of a large domain names portfolio, including the signs “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”, such as: . All of them are now connected to the official website http:\/\/www.intesasanpaolo.com.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on July 8, 2021 and is currently passively held.", "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\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant's contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is identical, or – at least – confusingly similar, to the Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”. The Complainant sustains that the disputed domain name reproduces exactly the well-known trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO”, with the mere addition of the term “SERVICE”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for a number of reasons.\r\n\r\nFirst, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name and any use of the trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA” has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFurther, the Complainant asserts that the domain name at stake does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of its knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as “INTESASANPAOLO-SERVICE.COM”.\r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant asserts that it does not find any fair or non-commercial uses of the domain name at stake.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s asserts that that its “INTESA” and “INTESA SANPAOLO” trademarks are distinctive and well known and therefore, that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings as 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 and also considering that the disputed domain name is connected to a website which has been blocked by Google Safe Browsing through a warning page.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings as the main purpose of the Respondent was to use the above website for “phishing” financial information in an attempt to defraud the Complainant’s customers and that Google promptly stopped the illicit activity carried out by the Respondent, which is an evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also asserts that even excluding any current “phishing” purposes or other illicit use of the domain name in the present case (which, however, has been confirmed by Google Safe Browsing with a warning page), the Complainant could find no other possible legitimate use of . The sole further aim of the owner of the domain name under consideration might be to resell it to the Complainant, which represents, in any case, an evidence of the registration and use in bad faith, in the Complainant’s view.", "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": [ "Delia-Mihaela Belciu" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-01-11 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant bases its Complaint on the:\r\n\r\n- International trademark registration “INTESA”, no. 793367, registered on September 4, 2002, for services in class 36, designating several countries for protection;\r\n- International trademark registration “INTESA SANPAOLO”, no. 920896, registered on March 7, 2007, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, 42, designating several countries for protection;\r\n- EU trademark registration “INTESA”, no. 12247979, filed on 23.10.2013, registered on March 5, 2014, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42; and\r\n- EU trademark registration “INTESA SANPAOLO”, no. 5301999, filed on September 8, 2006, registered on June 18, 2007, for services in classes 35, 36 and 38.", "decision_domains": { "INTESASANPAOLO-SERVICE.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }