{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105390", "time_of_filling": "2023-04-27 10:13:57", "domain_names": [ "INTESA-SUPPORTA.COM" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.", "respondent": [ "dee jay" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant is the leading Italian banking group and also one of the most prominent figures 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. Intesa Sanpaolo is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 45 billion euro, and it is the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). With a network of approximately 3600 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 13.6 million customers. Intesa Sanpaolo also has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 950 branches and over 7.1 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. Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner, among others, of the following domain names: <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>; and <intesa.me>, all of which redirect users to the Complainant’s official website at http:\/\/www.intesasanpaolo.com. <\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks as it uses the word “Intesa” with the mere addition of the Italian descriptive term “supporta” (meaning “support”). The disputed domain name also adds the “.com” TLD. Further, the disputed domain name is connected to a website sponsoring links to other businesses including banking and financial services. The Respondent thus has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it is not authorised to use the Complainant’s trademarks, it is not commonly known by the name, and it is not making a bona fide or fair use of the disputed domain name. Further, the addition of a descriptive word to the Complainant‘s trademark for a domain name that resolves to a website with monetized links to the Complainant‘s competitors, indicates that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.<\/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": "

The Complainant´s contentions are summarised above.<\/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": [ "Steven Levy" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-05-23 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of a number of trademark registrations covering various jurisdictions including the following:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

- International trademark registration n. 920896 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, granted on March 7, 2007 and duly renewed, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42;<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

- International trademark registration n. 793367 “INTESA”, granted on September 4, 2002 and duly renewed, in connection with class 36;<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

- EU trademark registration n. 5301999 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, applied on September 8, 2006, granted on June 18, 2007 and duly renewed, in classes 35, 36 and 38; and<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\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.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "INTESA-SUPPORTA.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }