The Complainant is an Italian banking group formed from the merger of Banca Intesa S.p.A and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A on 1 January 1, 2007. The Complainant's market capitalization exceeds 64,5 billion euro and Its network has approximately 3,300 branches in Italy alone where its services are offered to approximately 13,6 million customers. The Complainant also has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 900 branches and over 7.3 million customers. The international network specialized 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 of America, China and India.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on June 9, 2024 and it currently resolves to a webpage that is blocked due to a suspected phishing activity. <\/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<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. In particular, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA trademarks as both of these trademarks are contained in their entirety within the disputed domain name. The only difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark is the addition of the Italian term “VERIFICA”, meaning “verification”, which is an expression widely used by the Complainant for the security of its clients’ bank accounts.<\/p>\n Regarding the second UDRP element, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent (or any other person to that matter) to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark within the disputed domain name. The Respondent is also not commonly known by the disputed domain name and the use of the disputed domain name for a website blocked due to suspected phishing activities cannot be considered as a fair or non-commercial use.<\/p>\n With respect to the third UDRP element, the Complainant holds that its INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA trademarks are distinctive and well-known all around the world and 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. Furthermore, a simple internet search for these trademarks would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant holds that the disputed domain name is registered in bad faith. Additionally, 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 trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website. The fact that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is blocked due to a suspected phishing activity indicates that the Respondent was to use this website for phishing financial information in an attempt to defraud the Complainant’s customers. This illicit activity was promptly stopped by Google who has blocked the webpage which makes it clear that the disputed domain name was also used in bad faith.<\/p>\n The Respondent<\/strong><\/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": [
"Stefan Bojovic"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-09-17 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has demonstrated ownership of rights in the trademark INTESA SANPAOLO for the purposes of standing to file a UDRP complaint.<\/span><\/p>\n In particular, the Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for INTESA SANPAOLO, including the following: <\/span><\/p>\n - International trademark registration No. 920896 for INTESA SANPAOLO, registered on 7 March 2007, duly renewed and covering goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42<\/span>; and<\/p>\n - European Union trademark registration No. 5301999 for INTESA SANPAOLO, registered on 18 June 2007, duly renewed and covering services in classes 35, 36 and 38.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant also refers to ownership over the number of domain names that incorporate its INTESA SANPAOLO trademark, such as <intesasanpaolo.com>, registered on August 24, 2006, <intesasanpaolo.org>, registered on September 8, 2006 and <intesasanpaolo.eu>, registered on August 26, 2006.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"INTESASANPAOLO-VERIFICA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}