FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the leading Italian banking group.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the company resulting from the merger between Banca Intesa S.p.A. and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A., two of the top Italian banking groups.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 40,3 billion euro.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has a network of approximately 3.700 branches throughout Italy and has approximately 13,6 million customers.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 950 branches and over 7 million customers.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Complainant's 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.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of several registrations for the trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO\" and \"INTESA\".<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner, among others, of the following domain names bearing the signs “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”: INTESASANPAOLO.COM, .ORG, .EU, .INFO, .NET, .BIZ, INTESA-SANPAOLO.COM, .ORG, .EU, .INFO, .NET, .BIZ and INTESA.COM, INTESA.INFO, INTESA.BIZ, INTESA.ORG, INTESA.US, INTESA.EU, INTESA.CN, INTESA.IN, INTESA.CO.UK, INTESA.TEL, INTESA.NAME, INTESA.XXX, INTESA.ME. All of them are pointing to the main Complainant’s website.<\/p>\n
On October 5, 2022, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.<\/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": "
Complainant´s uncontested contentions are as follows:
The disputed domain name is identical, or – at least – confusingly similar, to the Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”. <INTESASONPOALO.COM> exactly reproduces the well-known trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO”, with the mere substitution of the first letter “A” with an “O” and the inversion of the letters “A” and “O” in the mark’s verbal portion “SANPAOLO” (<INTESASONPOALO.COM>). Consequently, the disputed domain name represents a clear example of typosquatting.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name, and any use of the trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA” has to be authorized by the Complainant. Nobody has been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of the Complainant's knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as “INTESASONPOALO”.<\/p>\n
The Complainant does not find any fair or non-commercial use of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s 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 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, if the Respondent had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wordings “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. This raises a clear inference of knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark on the part of the Respondent. Therefore, it is more than likely that the disputed domain name would not have been registered if it were not for Complainant’s trademark. This is a clear evidence of registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n
In addition, the disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings. More particularly, there are present circumstances indicating that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of his web site.<\/p>\n
First of all, several services can be detected, but not in good faith: in fact, the disputed domain name is connected to a website sponsoring, among others, banking and financial services, for whom the Complainant’s trademarks are registered and used.<\/p>\n
Consequently, Internet users, while searching for information on the Complainant’s services, are confusingly led to the websites of the Complainant’s competitors, sponsored on the websites connected to the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Complainant considers that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to intentionally divert traffic away from the Complainant’s web site.<\/p>\n
The current use of the disputed domain name, which allows accessing to the web sites of the Complainant’s competitors, also through the Complainant’s trademark, causes, as well, great damages to the latter, due to the misleading of their present clients and to the loss of potential new ones.<\/p>\n
The Respondent’s commercial gain is evident, since it is obvious that the Respondent’s sponsoring activity is being remunerated.<\/p>\n
It should be pointed out that the Complainant has already been part of other UDRP cases where the panelists ordered the transfer or the cancellation of the disputed domain names. <\/p>\n
On November 10, 2022, the Complainant’s attorneys sent to the Respondent a cease and desist letter, asking for the voluntary transfer of the disputed domain name. Despite such communication, the Respondent did not comply with the above request.<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed. <\/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": [ "Michele Antonini" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-02-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the registrant, among others, of the following trademarks:<\/span>
- International trademark registration No. 920896 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, registered on March 7, 2007, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;<\/span>
- International trademark registration No. 793367 “INTESA”, registered on September 4, 2002, for goods and services in class 36; and<\/span>
- EU trademark registration No. 5301999 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, registered on June 18, 2007, for goods and services in classes 35, 36 and 38.<\/span>
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on October 5, 2022. <\/span><\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"INTESASONPOALO.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}