{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104688", "time_of_filling": "2022-07-04 10:03:43", "domain_names": [ "INRTESASANPAOLO.COM" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.", "respondent": [ "Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Carolina Rodrigues" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:\r\n\r\n(a) The Complainant is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 39,5 billion euro, and the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). Thanks to a network of approximately 3,700 branches capillary and well distributed throughout the Country, with market shares of more than 16% 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 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\n(b) Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner, among the others, of the following domain names bearing the signs “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”: . All of them are now connected to the official website http:\/\/www.intesasanpaolo.com.\r\n\r\n(c) There is no website operated under the disputed domain name. ", "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\nIn addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:\r\n\r\n(a) The disputed domain name at issue is identical, or – at least – confusingly similar, to Complainant’s Trademarks. The disputed domain name exactly reproduces the well-known trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO”, with the mere addition of the letter “R” in the mark’s word element “INTESA” (a clear example of typosquatting).\r\n\r\n(b) The Respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name, and any use of the trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA SANPAOLO BANK” has to be authorized by the Complainant. Nobody has been authorized or licensed by the above-mentioned banking group to use the domain name at issue. The disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of Complainant‘s knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as “INRTESASANPAOLO”. Therefore, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n(c) The Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA SANPAOLO BANK”, 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 Trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Also, the 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 (typosquatting). Therefore, the Respondent registered and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith. \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.", "rights": "The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"UDRP\" or \"Policy\").\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".", "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.\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".", "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.\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".", "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": [ "Michal Matějka" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-08-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of several international and EU trademarks \"INTESA SANPAOLO\" and \"INTESA\", in particular, the EU trademark No. 5301999 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, filed on 8 September 2006, registered on 18 June 2007, in classes 35, 36, 38, EU trademark No. 12247979 “INTESA”, filed on 23 October 2013 and registered on 5 March 2014, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42, international trademark No. 920896 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, registered on 7 March 2007 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 and international trademark No. 793367 “INTESA”, registered on 4 September 2002 and duly renewed, in class 36. \r\n\r\n(\"Complainant`s Trademarks\").\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 4 February 2022.", "decision_domains": { "INRTESASANPAOLO.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }