{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104690",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-07-04 10:10:23",
    "domain_names": [
        "MODULO-AGGIORNAMENTO-INTESA.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.",
    "respondent": [
        "marano tu si, antonio di bartolomeo"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\nA. Background history\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the leading Italian banking group and a major player in the European financial arena, whose company name resulted from the merger in 2007 of two Italian banking groups, namely, Banca Intesa S.p.A. and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A., two of the top Italian banking groups. The Complainant presently offers its services to approximately 13.5 million customers worldwide, with an international network present in 25 countries. \r\n\r\nIn addition to the trade marks mentioned in the above section \"Identification of rights\", and numerous other trade marks, the Complainant informs that it is also the owner of various domain names which contain the marks INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO, most notably <intesasanpaolo.com>, which was registered in 2006.   \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <modulo-aggiornamento-intesa.com> was registered on 2 October 2020. \r\n\r\nBy way of relief, the Complainant seeks the transfer of the disputed domain name <modulo-aggiornamento-intesa.com> to the Complainant on the grounds advanced in section B below. \r\n\r\nB. Legal grounds\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical, or at least confusingly similar, to the Complainant’s trade marks INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s well known trade marks, with the mere addition of the Italian terms “modulo” and “aggiornamento”, which are merely descriptive of the Complainant’s services.  \r\n\r\nII. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name, and any use of the trade marks INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA has to be authorised by the Complainant. The Respondent is not authorised or licensed by the Complainant in any way, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nIII. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith\r\n\r\nRegistration\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the trade marks INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA are well-known and distinctive. The Complainant further states that, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the trade marks INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trade marks.  \r\n\r\nUse \r\n\r\nThe Complainant avers that the disputed domain name is connected to a website sponsoring, amongst others, banking and financial services, and that the Respondent has intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings in so far as it resolves to a website which contains links to the Complainant’s competitors. \r\n\r\nAs additional indicia giving rise to a presumption of bad faith, the Complainant refers to the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <modulo-aggiornamento-intesa.com> (“the disputed domain name”).\r\n",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy).\r\n",
    "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 UDRP 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 UDRP Policy).\r\n",
    "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": [
        "Dr Gustavo Moser"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-08-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade marks, amongst others:\r\n\r\n• International trade mark registration no. 920896, registered on 7 March 2007, for the word mark INTESA SANPAOLO, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 of the Nice Classification; \r\n\r\n• International trade mark registration no. 793367, registered on 4 September 2002, for the word mark INTESA, in class 36 of the Nice Classification;\r\n\r\n• EU trade mark registration no. 005301999, registered on 18 June 2007, for the word mark INTESA SANPAOLO, in classes 35, 36 and 38 of the Nice Classification; and\r\n\r\n• EU trade mark registration no. 012247979, registered on 5 March 2014, for the word mark INTESA, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 of the Nice Classification.\r\n\r\n(hereinafter, collectively or individually, “the Complainant’s trade mark”; “the Complainant’s trade mark INTESA”; or \"the trade mark INTESA\" interchangeably).\r\n\r\nAt the time of writing, the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page comprising pay-per-click (“PPC”) links (“the Respondent’s website”).",
    "decision_domains": {
        "MODULO-AGGIORNAMENTO-INTESA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}