{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104542",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-05-03 08:53:45",
    "domain_names": [
        "INTESASP.LIVE"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.",
    "respondent": [
        "Domenico Vitali"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is the leading Italian banking group as well as one of the major banking groups 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. According to Complainant it has a market capitalization exceeding 40,5 billion euro, and is the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that it services its customers through a network of approximately 3,700 branches that are well distributed throughout the Country, with market shares of more than 17% in most Italian regions. The Group offers its services to approximately 13,5 million customers. In addition, 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 specialized 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\nAccording to Complainant Respondent registered the domain name <INTESASP.LIVE> on February 16, 2022. Complainant has no business relationship with Respondent and Respondent had no authority to register the disputed domain name which at present is being 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 is renown in its field of business and has a worldwide presence. It contends that the evidence of record supports the conclusion that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that it was registered and is being used in bad faith. It points out that <INTESASP.LIVE> is virtually identical to its trademark in that it simply contracts \"San Paolo\" to \"SP\" and although it is not currently resolving to an active website if it were to do so it would mislead and possibly be a vehicle for committing fraud with damaging consequences to Complainant, its customers, and consumers.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also contends that Its trademarks INTESA SANPAOLO and “INTESA” are distinctive and well known all around the world. The fact that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar, indeed virtually identical to them indicates that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. In addition, it is implausible that Respondent lacked actual knowledge of Complainant and that if it were deny it a basic Google search would have brought Complainant's “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA” to its attention and the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. The Complainant submits as part of its evidence an extract of a Google search in support of its allegation. This raises a clear inference of actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark on the part of the Respondent. Therefore, it is more likely than not that the disputed domain name was registered for the purposes of targeting Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that it neither authorized nor did it give Respondent permission to register <INTESASP.LIVE>. The disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and no conceivable evidence can possibly be offered that Respondent is commonly known as “INTESASP”. Passive holding under the circumstances present in this case supports the conclusion that Respondent cannot make any legitimate use of <INTESASP.LIVE> that would support a claim for rights or legitimate interests. It is inconceivable that Respondent could use the disputed domain name for any fair or non-commercial uses.\r\n\r\nThe Claimant further states that Respondent registered and is using <INTESASP.LIVE> in bad faith. More particularly, and in view of Respondent's failing to appear or defend his registration of the disputed domain name, and the lack of any evidence to the contrary, there are present circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered the domain name for one of the proscribed purposes set forth in UDRP Paragraph 4(b) and that its continued holding is in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant reminds the Panel that the consensus view of WIPO UDRP panelists is that passive holding of a disputed domain name may, in appropriate circumstances, be consistent with a finding of bad faith, particularly where the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to well-known and famous marks and where conceivable use that could be made of the domain name that would not amount to an infringement of the complainant’s trade mark rights.\r\n\r\nComplainant refers the Panel to Comerica Inc. v. Horoshiy, Inc., Case No. D2004-0615, also involving a bank in which the Panel held\r\n\r\n\"The very act of having acquired [the domain name] raises the probability of Respondent using [it] in a manner that is contrary to Complainant’s legal rights and legitimate interests. [...] To argue that Complainant should have to wait for some future use of the disputed domain names to occur in order to demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith use is to render intellectual property law into an instrument of abuse by the Respondent. The result would be the likelihood of the accumulation and use of disputed domain names for the implicit, if not explicit, purpose of misappropriating or otherwise unlawfully undermining Complainant’s goodwill and business. The fact that this misappropriation may occur in any as yet undetermined manner at an uncertain future date does not negate Respondent’s bad faith. On the contrary, it raises the specter of continuing bad faith abuse by Respondent of Complainant’s Mark, name and related rights and legitimate business interests.\"\r\n\r\nThe risk of a wrongful use of the domain name at issue is even higher in the present case, since the Complainant has already been targeted by some cases of phishing in the past few years. Such a practice consists of attracting the customers of a bank to a web page which imitates the real page of the bank, with a view to having customers disclose confidential information like a credit card or bank account number, for the purpose of unlawfully charging such bank accounts or withdrawing money out of them. It happened that some clients of the Complainant have received e-mail messages asking, by the means of web pages which were very similar to the Complainant’s ones, the sensitive data of the Clients, like user ID, password etc. with the result that some of the Clients have been cheated of their savings.\r\n\r\nFinally, Complainant believes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the “phishing” purpose, in order to induce and divert the Complainant’s legitimate customers to its website and steal their money and the above could be easily verified given the particular nature of the disputed domain name which for all practical purposes is virtually identical to Complainant's trademarks and to its domain names. Even excluding any “phishing” purposes or other illicit use of the domain name in the present case, Complainant is unable to find any possible legitimate use of INTESASP.LIVE.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions and did not submit any arguments or evidence in its defense. In such event, UDRP Rule 14 provides (a) that the \"Panel shall proceed to a decision on the complaint\" and (b) that \"the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.\" In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at Para. 4.3.e. In such event, UDRP Rule 14 provides (a) that the \"Panel shall proceed to a decision on the complaint\" and (b) that \"the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.\" In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at Para. 4.3.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that 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": [
        "Gerald M. Levine, Ph.D, Esq."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-06-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner, among others, of the following registrations for the trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO”, “INTESA” and “ISP”:\r\n\r\n- International trademark registration n. 920896 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, granted on March 7, 2007 and duly renewed, in connection with classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42;\r\n- International trademark registration n. 793367 “INTESA”, granted on September 4, 2002 and duly renewed, in connection with class 36;\r\n-EU trademark registration n. 5301999 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, filed on September 8, 2006, granted on June 18, 2007 and duly renewed, in connection with the classes 35, 36 and 38;\r\n- EU trademark registration n. 12247979 “INTESA”, filed on October 23, 2013 and granted on March 5, 2014, in connection with classes 9, 16, 35, 36 38, 41 and 42; and\r\n- EU trademark registration n. 7310337 “ISP”, filed on October 13, 2008, granted on February 12, 2010 and duly renewed, in connection with the class 36.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INTESASP.LIVE": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}