The Complainant is a banking group established in Italy with an in international presence, and in addition to its registered trademark rights described above, it has an established internet presence and is the owner of a large portfolio of Internet domain names including <bancaintesasanpaolo-group.com> and <gruppobancaintesasanpaolo.com>, all of which are connected to the Complainant’s official website www.intesasanpaolo.com.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on June 14, 2023, and resolves to a webpage with pay-per-click links to third party sites, including websites offering services competing with the Complainant.<\/p>\n
There is no information available about the Respondent, except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar to the Centre in response to the request by the Centre for details of the registration of 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<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims rights in the INTESA SANPAOLO, GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO and BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO trademarks and service marks established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described above and its extensive use of the marks in its banking business.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that it is a leading Italian banking group and is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding €46,51 billion, having 3,400 branches in Italy, with approximately 13.6 million customers.<\/p>\n
It also has a strong presence in Central and Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 950 branches and over 7,2 million customers.<\/p>\n
It is represented 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
Moreover, the Complainant has provided evidence in the form of a screen capture of its official website at www.intesasanpaolo.com to show that it has an established internet presence. It also submits that it is the owner of a large portfolio of Internet domain names including <bancaintesasanpaolo-group.com> and <gruppobancaintesasanpaolo.com> all of which resolve to its official website.<\/p>\n
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <gruppointesasanpaolobanca.com> is identical or confusingly similar to its “INTESA SANPAOLO”, “GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO” and “BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO” trademarks and service marks.<\/p>\n
The Complainant particularly argues that the disputed domain name exactly reproduces its well-known trademark GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO, with the mere addition of the Italian term “BANCA” (meaning “bank”), which is an obvious reference to the Complainant's business and is in fact an element in Complainant’s BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO registered trademark.<\/p>\n
It is next alleged that the Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name, arguing that any use of the trademarks INTESA SANPAOLO, GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO and BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO must be authorized by the Complainant, because of its pre-existing registered trademark rights.<\/p>\n
The Complainant adds that it has not authorized or licensed anyone to use the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant furthermore submits that 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 “GRUPPOINTESASANPAOLOBANCA”.<\/p>\n
Referring to a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the Complainant submits that the web pages do not show that the Respondent is putting the website and the disputed domain name to any fair or non-commercial use.<\/p>\n
Next the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that its trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO”, “GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO” and “BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO” are distinctive and well known all around the world. The fact that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks indicates that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s marks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
In addition, it is argued that if the Respondent had carried out even a basic search on an Internet search engine in respect of the wordings “INTESA SANPAOLO”, “GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO” and “BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO”, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. In support of this argument, the Complainant has exhibited a screen capture of the results of such a search in an annex to the Complaint.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that this raises a clear inference of knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks on the part of the Respondent. Therefore, it is probable that the disputed domain name would not have been registered if it were not for Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant submits that this is clear evidence that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the screen capture shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a website sponsoring banking and financial services, for whom the Complainant’s trademarks are registered and used. 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
The Complainant contends that therefore the disputed contested domain name is not used for any bona fide<\/em> offerings, but the evidence shows that 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 (par. 4(b)(iv) of the Policy in order to gain through pay-per-click income from the links on the exhibited website.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name to intentionally divert traffic away from the Complainant’s web site.<\/p>\n The Complainant argues that such use of the disputed domain name to re-direct internet users to websites of competing organizations constitute bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v. Shedon.com,<\/em> WIPO Case No. D2000-0753 (“Respondent’s Ownership of a site which is a mis-spelling of Complainant’s britannica.com site and which Respondent used to hyperlink to a gambling site demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the britannnica.com domain name”).<\/p>\n The Complainant furthermore submits that the current use of the disputed domain name, facilitates access to the web sites of the Complainant’s competitors, which damages the Complainant’s business by the misleading the Complainant’s existing, and potential new clients. See Microsoft Corporation v. StepWeb, WIPO Case No. D2000-1500.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that Respondent’s commercial gain is evident, since it is obvious that the Respondent’s sponsoring activity is being remunerated.<\/p>\n The Complainant adds that it is no coincidence that the Respondent has targeted a big financial institution such as the Complainant, as the practice of diversion of Internet traffic is very frequent in the banking realm due to the high number of online banking users.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Respondent<\/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": [
"James Bridgeman"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-09-01 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the registered owner of the following trademark and service mark registrations INTESA SANPAOLO, GRUPPO INTESA SANPAOLO and BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO:<\/p>\n\n