The Complainant is the leading Italian banking group and also one of the protagonists in the European financial area. Intesa Sanpaolo is the company resulting from the merger (effective as of January 1, 2007) between Banca Intesa S.p.A. and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A., two of the top Italian banking groups.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 74,7 billion euro, and the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). Thanks to a network of approximately 3,000 branches capillary and well distributed throughout the Country, with market shares of more than 15% in most Italian regions, the Group offers its services to approximately 13,9 million customers. <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 900 branches and over 7,5 million customers. Moreover, the international network specialised 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, Russia, China and India.<\/span><\/p>\n The disputed domain name <INTESAGROUPLLC<\/span>.COM> was registered on November 20, 2024<\/span>. <\/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 <INTESAGROUPLLC.COM>.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " COMPLAINANT:<\/span><\/p>\n 1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark<\/p>\n According to the Complainant, the Respondent’s registered disputed domain name is identical, or – at least – confusingly similar, to the Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA” and “GRUPPO INTESA”. Essentially, <INTESAGROUPLLC.COM> exactly reproduces the Complainant's well-known trademark “INTESA”, with the mere addition of the term “GROUP” (meaning “GRUPPO” in Italian, with obvious references to Complainant’s trademark “GRUPPO INTESA” and to the well-known “Intesa Sanpaolo Group”) and letters “LLC” (representing a type of company structure, being misleading and creating confusion for Internet users). Furthermore, a basic Google search of the term “INTESA GROUP LLC” yields results that include or refer to the Complainant, further illustrating the likelihood of confusion among Internet users. <\/span>2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name<\/span> Finally, the Complainant has identified no evidence of fair use or non-commercial use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. <\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Any use of the trademarks “INTESA” and “GRUPPO INTESA” must be expressly authorized or licensed by the Complainant. In this case, no such authorization or license has been granted by the Complainant or its affiliated banking group for the use of the disputed domain name. 3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<\/p>\n The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA” and “GRUPPO INTESA” are distinctive and well-known worldwide. The fact that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to them indicates that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Even excluding any “phishing”<\/em> purposes or other illicit use of the disputed domain name in the present case (which however, has been confirmed by Google Safe Browsing with a warning page), the Complainant claims there is no other possible legitimate use of the disputed domain name. The sole further aim of the Respondent under consideration might be to resell it to the Complainant, which represents, in any case, evidence of the registration and use in bad faith, according to par. 4(b)(i).<\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. RESPONDENT:<\/span> 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": [
"Barbora Donathová"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-03-27 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant states and provides evidence to support that it is the owner, among others, of multiple trademark registrations for the trademarks “INTESA” and “GRUPPO INTESA”:<\/p>\n - International trademark registration n. 793367 “INTESA”, granted on September 4, 2002 and duly renewed, in connection with class 36;<\/p>\n - EU trademark registration n. 12247979 “INTESA”, filed on October 23, 2013 and granted on March 5, 2014, in connection with classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;<\/p>\n - EU trademark registration n. 779827 “GRUPPO INTESA”, applied on September 28, 2006, granted on July 6, 2007 and duly renewed, in classes 9, 16, 36, 41 and 42.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner, among the others, of the following domain names bearing the signs “INTESA” and “GRUPPO INTESA”: INTESA.COM, INTESA.INFO, INTESA.BIZ, INTESA.ORG, INTESA.US, INTESA.EU, INTESA.CN, INTESA.IN, INTESA.CO.UK, INTESA.TEL, INTESA.NAME, INTESA.XXX, INTESA.ME, <\/span>GRUPPOINTESA.IT, .COM, .NET, .ORG, .EU, .US, INTESAGROUP.COM, .EU, .INFO and .CLOUD.<\/span> All of them are now connected to the official website http:\/\/www.intesasanpaolo.com.<\/span><\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"INTESAGROUPLLC.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
<\/span><\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Any use of the trademarks “INTESA” and “GRUPPO INTESA” must be authorized or licensed by the Complainant. In this case, no such authorization or license has been granted by the Complainant for the use of the disputed domain name.
Moreover, 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 by the name “INTESAGROUPLLC”.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends it is evident from a basic Google search concerning the wordings “INTESA” and “GRUPPO 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 disputed domain name would not have been registered if it were not for Complainant’s trademark. This is evidence of registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Also, the disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide <\/em>offerings. More particularly, the Complainant presents that the webpage connected to the disputed domain name is currently blocked by Google Safe Browsing because of suspected “phishing”<\/em> activity. The Complainant argues that the<\/span> main purpose of the Respondent was to use the above website for “phishing”<\/em> financial information in an attempt to defraud the Complainant’s customers and that Google promptly stopped the illicit activity carried out by the Respondent.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/span><\/p>",
"rights": "