{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105693",
    "time_of_filling": "2023-08-09 10:05:36",
    "domain_names": [
        "INTESASANPALOL.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.",
    "respondent": [
        "lin yanfei"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant, Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. is an Italian banking group, which is also among the top banking groups in the euro zone. The Complainant has approximately 3400 branches serving approximately 13,6 million customers in Italy and approximately 950 branches and over 7,2 million customers in Central Eastern Europe.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant holds several trademark registrations for &ldquo;INTESA SANPAOLO&rdquo; and &ldquo;INTESA&rdquo; and the Complainant also holds the domain names bearing &ldquo;INTESA SAN PAOLO&rdquo; and &ldquo;INTESA&rdquo;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">On October 20,2022; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name &lt;intesasanpalol.com&gt;. The disputed domain name redirects to a website with a security warning at the time of this decision.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s well-known and distinctive trademarks &ldquo;INTESA SANPAOLO&rdquo; and &ldquo;INTESA&rdquo; as it represents a typo-squatting version of the Complainant&rsquo;s well-known trademark &ldquo;INTESA SANPAOLO&rdquo;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant states that the disputed domain name only lacks the letter &ldquo;O&rdquo; and is with an additional letter &ldquo;L&rdquo;, which is to be considered as a typing error.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name and the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant also alleges that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks &ldquo;INTESA SANPAOLO&rdquo; and &ldquo;INTESA&rdquo;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant indicates that the disputed domain name &lt;intesasanpalol.com&gt; has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s well-known prior trademarks. The Complainant claims that given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant&rsquo;s business and trademarks worldwide, the Respondent could not have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant also states that the disputed domain name is not used for any <em>bone fide <\/em>offerings. More particularly, it was claimed that 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 website.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant asserts that several services that are not in good faith can be detected, as the domain name is connected to a website sponsoring, banking and financial services, for which the Complainant&rsquo;s trademarks are registered and used. Therefore, the Internet users may be confusingly led to the Respondent&rsquo;s website while searching for Complainant&rsquo;s service, and the Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to intentionally divert traffic away from the Complainant&rsquo;s website, which constitutes bad faith.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant also states that the Respondent&rsquo;s commercial gain is evident, since it is obvious that the Respondent&rsquo;s sponsoring activity is remunerated.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant further asserts that the diversion practice in banking realm is very frequent due to the high number of online banking users and that the Complainant has already been part of other WIPO UDRP Cases where the panellists ordered the transfer or the cancellation of the disputed domain names, detecting bad faith in the registrations.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Accordingly, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": [
        "Mrs Selma Ünlü"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-09-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the following:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">- the IR trademark INTESA SANPAOLO (registration n&deg;920896) dated March 7, 2007;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">- the IR trademark INTESA (registration n&deg;793367) dated September 4, 2002;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">- the EU trademark INTESA SANPAOLO (registration n&deg;5301999) dated June 18, 2007;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">- the EU trademark INTESA (registration n&deg;12247979) dated October 23, 2013.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain names bearing the signs &ldquo;INTESA SANPAOLO&rdquo; and &ldquo;INTESA&rdquo; such as the domain names &lt;intesasanpaolo.com&gt; and &lt;intesa.com&gt;.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "INTESASANPALOL.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}