{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104954", "time_of_filling": "2022-10-31 10:04:02", "domain_names": [ "ALINTESANPAOLO.COM" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.", "respondent": [ "Transure Enterprise Ltd" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is the company resulting from the merger, effective as of the 1st of January 2007, between Banca Intesa S.p.A. and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A., two of the top Italian banking groups at the time. The Complainant is now the leading Italian banking group, operating 3,700 branches throughout the Italian territory, with a market share of more than 16% in several Italian regions, providing its services to approximately 13,5 million customers. The Complainant is also among the top leading banking groups in the Euro zone, with a market capitalisation of more than 32,8 billion Euro. The Complainant has a strong presence in Central Eastern Europe, with a network of approximately 1000 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 in those areas where Italian companies are most active, such as the United States, Russia, China and India.<\/p>\n

 The disputed domain name was registered on March 25, 2022 and leads to a website containing pay-per-click links<\/strong>.<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA, as it reproduces the well-known trademark INTESA SANPAOLO, with the omission of the letters \"SA\" of the word INTESA, and the addition of the letters \"AL\", which is a clear example of typosquatting.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further maintains that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name and any use of the trademarks INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO has to be authorised by the Complainant.   Furthermore, the disputed domain name does not correspond to the Respondent's name and, to the best of the Complainant's knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as \"alintesanpaolo.com\". Lastly, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a noncommercial fair use, as further discussed below.  <\/p>\n

In respect of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant contends that its trademarks INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO are distinctive and well known and the fact that the Respondent has registered a disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to them indicates that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.  Had the Complainant carried out even a basic Google search, in relation to the Complainant's marks, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. Therefore, it is more than likely that the disputed domain name would not have been registered, hadn't it been for the Complainant's trademarks. This is a clear evidence of the registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

In addition, the disputed domain name is connected to a website sponsoring, amongst others, banking and financial services, which are protected by the Complainant's trademarks. Consequently, Internet users while searching for the Complainant are confusingly led to the websites of the Complainant's competitors, sponsored on the website connected to the domain name at issue.  Therefore, the Complainant maintains that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to intentionally divert traffic away from the Complainant's website.  Such use of the disputed domain name also causes great damages to the Complainant due to the misleading of their present clients and the loss of potential new ones.  The Respondent's commercial gain is evident, since it is obvious that the Respondent's sponsoring activity is being remunerated.<\/p>\n

Lastly, the Complainant points out that on June 1, 2022, the Complainant sent to the Respondent a cease and desist letter asking for the voluntary transfer of the disputed domain name. Despite this letter, the Respondent did not comply with the Complainant's request.<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Angelica Lodigiani" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-12-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks:<\/p>\n