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 the following:<\/p>\n
The Complainant is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalization exceeding 70,1 billion euro, and the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). It has a network of approximately 3,300 branches capillary, with market shares of more than 15% in most Italian regions, the Group offers its services to approximately 13,7 million customers. The Complainant has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 900 branches and over 7,5 million customers. The Complainant is the owner of the several trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA” and several domain names bearing the signs “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”.<\/p>\n
On April 14, 2024, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <intesasanpaoloit.com> that is identical, or at least confusingly similar, to the Complainant’s trademarks as exactly reproduces the Complainant’s trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO”, with the mere addition of the acronym “IT” (which represents the abbreviation of the geographical term “ITALY”, the country in which is located Complainant’s headquarters).<\/p>\n
The Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name, and any use of the trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA” has to be authorized by the Complainant. Nobody has been authorized or licensed by the above-mentioned banking group to use the disputed domain name. The disputed domain does not correspond to the name of the Respondent and, to the best of Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known as “INTESASANPAOLOIT” and no fair or non-commercial use of the disputed domain name has been found.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith. The Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA” are distinctive and well known all around the world. 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.<\/p>\n
In addition, if the Respondent had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wordings “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant. This raises a clear inference of knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark on the part of the Respondent. Therefore, it is more than likely that the domain name at issue would not have been registered if it were not for Complainant’s trademark. This is a clear evidence of registration of the domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n
In addition, the disputed domain name is not used for any bone fide offerings. More particularly, there are circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name (par. 4(b)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings, even if it is connected to a Registrar’s web page without particular active contents, by now. The passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party’s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n
In particular, the consensus view of WIPO UDRP panellists is that passive holding of a disputed domain name may, in appropriate circumstances, be consistent with a finding of bad faith. However, panels have tended to make such findings in circumstances in which, for example, a complainant’s mark is well-known, and there is no conceivable use that could be made of the domain name that would not amount to an infringement of the complainant’s trade mark rights.<\/p>\n
As regards to the first aspect, the Complainant has proved the notoriety of its trademarks. For what concern the second circumstance, it must be underlined that it is objectively not possible to understand what kind of use the Respondent could make with a domain name which does exactly correspond to the Complainant’s trademarks and that results so similar to the Complainant’s domain names currently used by the latter to provide online banking services for enterprises.<\/p>\n
The risk of a wrongful use of the domain name at issue is even higher in the present case, since the Complainant has already been targeted by some cases of phishing in the past few years. Even excluding any “phishing” purposes or other illicit use of the disputed domain name, it is not possible to find any other possible legitimate use of the disputed domain name.<\/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 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": [ "Petr Hostaš" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-01-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The disputed domain name <intesasanpaoloit.com> was registered on April 14, 2024.<\/p>\n<\/div>", "decision_domains": { "INTESASANPAOLOIT.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }