{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104465",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-04-01 09:54:37",
    "domain_names": [
        "INTESA-ONLINE.COM",
        "INTESA-ONLINE.ORG"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.",
    "respondent": [
        "Gabriella Campora"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant (Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.) is a leading Italian banking group and also one of the protagonists in the European financial arena. The Complainant is the company resulting from the merger (effective as of 1 January 2007) between Banca Intesa S.p.A. and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A., two of the top Italian banking groups.\r\nBoth disputed domain names were registered on 19 July 2021 and they are held by the Respondent.\r\nThe domain name websites (i.e. websites available under internet address containing the disputed domain names) do not resolve to any active website (this is the same for both disputed domain names).\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of both disputed domain names to the Complainant.",
    "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 names. ",
    "no_response_filed": "The Parties' contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n- The disputed domain names contain the “INTESA” word element of the Complainant's trademarks in its entirety and thus they are almost identical (i.e. confusingly similar) to the Complainant’s trademarks since the domain names differ from the Complainant trademarks only by a descriptive expression \"ONLINE\". \r\n\r\nThus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain names is clearly established.\r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n- The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names;\r\n- The Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by either of disputed domain names;\r\n- Furthermore, the domain name websites (with respect to both disputed domain names) have not been used for any legitimate or fair purposes.\r\n\r\nBAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n- Seniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain names' registration and such trademarks are well known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered aware of the Complainant's trademarks when registering the disputed domain name due to well-known character thereof, which should have been checked by the Respondent by performing a simple internet search;\r\n- The disputed domain names (at the time of filing of the complaint) were not used for any bona fide offerings of goods or services;\r\n- It is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain names that are confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademarks which enjoys strong reputation, plus other facts, such as above described unfair use of the disputed domain names, are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy;\r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that registering a “phishing” website is perhaps the clearest evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith”, especially when it concerns trademarks of financial institutions that enjoy high level of notoriety and well-known character;\r\n- Complainant has tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist letter requesting that the Respondent voluntary transfers the disputed domain name to the Complainant, with which they did not comply.\r\n\r\n RESPONDENT:\r\n The Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-05-02 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademarks containing word element \"INTESA\":\r\n\r\n(i) INTESA (word), International Trademark, filing (priority) date 4 September 2002, registration no. 793367, registered for services in class 36;\r\n(ii) INTESA (word), EU Trademark, filing (priority) date 23 October 2013, registration no. 12247979, registered for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;\r\n(iii) INTESA SANPAOLO, International Trademark, filing (priority) date 7 March 2007, registration no. 920896, registered for goods and services in classes 36;\r\n(iv) INTESA SANPAOLO, EU trademark, filing (priority) date 8 September 2006, registration no. 5301999, registered for goods and services in classes 35, 36, 38,\r\nbesides other national and international trademarks consisting of or containing the \"INTESA\" wording.\r\n(Collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term „INTESA\" such as <INTESASANPAOLO.COM> (official website), <INTESA.COM>, <INTESA.EU>, <INTESA.ORG> and others.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INTESA-ONLINE.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "INTESA-ONLINE.ORG": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}