Mooney S.p.A. is a company born in December 2019 that offers excellence and security in payments. In particular, the Complainant makes payment services and all transactional operations always available thanks to a network of over 45,000 points of sale - tobacconists, bars and newsstands - and the most modern digital platforms. The aim of the Complainant is to make people's relationship with banking and payments more accessible and familiar, promoting a new simple and fast lifestyle. Thanks to continuous investments in technology and innovation, it offers millions of people the physical experience, with the widest range of services perfectly integrated between physical and digital channels. In this way Complainant has become the first Proximity Banking & Payments company in Italy.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner, among others, of several registrations for the trademark \"MOONEY\" and of domain names containing the wording \"MOONEY\":<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
On January 12, 2024, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name MOONEY.NETWORK.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant believes that it is more than obvious that the disputed domain name at issue is identical, or – at least – confusingly similar, to the above-mentioned trademarks. In particular, the disputed domain name at issue exactly reproduces the trademark “MOONEY”.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In the view of the Complainant the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name, and any use of the trademark “MOONEY” has to be authorized by the Complainant. The disputed domain name at stake does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of Complainant's knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as “MOONEY”. Lastly, the Complainant does not find any fair or non-commercial uses of the disputed domain name at stake.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the Complainant’s trademark “MOONEY” is distinctive and well-known all around the world. The fact that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to it indicates that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s’ trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. In addition, the Complainant is of the view, that if the Respondent had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wording “MOONEY”, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. The Complainant believes that therefore, it is more than likely that the disputed domain name would not have been registered if it were not for Complainant’s trademark, which is a clear indication of bad faith.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In addition, the disputed domain name is not used for any bone 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 (par. 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that several services can be detected, but not in good faith: in fact, the disputed domain name was initially linked to a web page reproducing the trademark “MOONEY” and using the same colours of Mooney S.p.A.’s official website. Currently, the disputed domain name redirects to a website sponsoring financial services and in particular a protocol for carrying out secure and confidential transactions continuing to reproduce the trademark “MOONEY” and use the same colours of Complainant’s official website.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Consequently, the Complainant states that internet users, while searching for information on the Complainant’s services, are confusingly led to the website of the Respondent. Therefore, the Complainant deems that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to intentionally divert traffic away from the Complainant’s website and to gain advantage from Complainant’s activity, investments and reputation.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The current use of the disputed domain name, which allows accessing to the web site of the Respondent, causes, as well, great damages to the Complainant, due to the misleading of their present clients and to the loss of potential new ones.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant is of the view, that the Respondent’s commercial gain is evident, since it is obvious that the Respondent’s sponsoring activity is being remunerated.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Lastly, the Complainant states it shall be noted that on March 27, 2024 the Complainant’s attorneys sent to the Respondent’s Registrar a cease and desist letter, asking to forward the document to the domain name owner in order to require the voluntary transfer of the domain name at issue. Despite such communication, the Respondent did not comply with the above request.<\/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 contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
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": [ "Jan Schnedler" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-12-23 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner, among others, of the following registrations for the trademark <\/span>“MOONEY”<\/span>:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n - International trademark registration n. 1547324 “MOONEY”, granted on June 18, 2020, in connection with classes 9, 36, 37, 38 and 42;<\/p>\n - EU trademark registration n. 018248141 “MOONEY”, filed on June 3, 2020, granted on September 16, 2020, in connection with classes 9, 36, 37 and 38;<\/p>\n - EU trademark registration n. 018656425 “MOONEY”, filed on February 15, 2022, granted on June 30, 2022, in connection with classes 12, 25 and 41;<\/p>\n - EU trademark registration n. 018656431 “MOONEY & device”, filed on February 15, 2022, granted on July 05, 2022, in connection with classes 12, 25, 36 and 41;<\/p>\n - EU trademark registration n. 018365022 “MOONEY”, filed on December 29, 2020, granted on June 03, 2021, in connection with classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42;<\/p>\n -Italian trademark registration n. 302020000038617 “MOONEY”, filed on May 20, 2020, granted on October 7, 2020, in connection with classes 9, 36, 37, 38 and 42.<\/p>\n Complainant is also the owner, among others, of the following domain names bearing the sign “MOONEY”: MOONEY.IT, MOONEY.JP, MOONEY.AR, MOONEY.LU, MOONEY.CO.TH, MOONEYGO.NL, MOONEYGO.DE, MOONEYGO.FI, MOONEYGO.PL, etc.<\/p>\n On January 12, 2024, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name MOONEY.NETWORK.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"MOONEY.NETWORK": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}