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
Intesa Sanpaolo 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. Intesa Sanpaolo 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.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on October 14, 2024, and by the moment of submitting this complaint was redirecting to a low-quality website containing vague and generic references to financial services.<\/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 asserts that all elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the relevant Rules are satisfied:<\/p>\n On November 7, 2024, the Complainant’s attorneys sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Registrar requesting that it be forwarded to the disputed domain name’s owner. The Respondent failed to comply.<\/p>\n The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.<\/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>\n Procedural Issue: Language of the Proceeding<\/strong><\/p>\n Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”.<\/p>\n The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Russian. The Panel is proficient in both Russian and English.<\/p>\n The factors that the Panel should take into consideration include whether the Respondent is able to understand and effectively communicate in the language in which the Complaint has been made and would suffer no real prejudice, and whether the expenses of requiring translation and the delay in the proceedings can be avoided without at the same time causing injustice to the Parties.<\/p>\n The Complaint was submitted in English. The Complainant, an Italian company, requests that the proceeding be conducted in English, citing the following:<\/p>\n Given that the Respondent deliberately registered a domain name identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark, it is reasonable to presume awareness of the Complainant’s rights.<\/p>\n The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs.<\/p>\n While applying the provision on the language of the proceeding, the Panel considers that it should ensure that the parties are treated equally, that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and that the proceeding takes place with due expedition.<\/p>\n While there is a language requirement in paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel must balance that against other considerations of ensuring that the proceeding takes place with due expedition and that the parties are treated fairly and given a fair opportunity to present their case. The Panel is of the view that the language requirement should not cause any undue burden on the parties or undue delay.<\/p>\n According to section 4.5.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), this complaint falls under scenarios warranting proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. For instance, (i) evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, (ii) the language\/script of the domain name, particularly where it is the same as that of the complainant’s mark.<\/p>\n It is well-known fact not requiring a proof that English is widely understood and is spoken throughout the world as an international language, including Russia. Therefore, it is highly likely that the relevant Respondent might understand English sufficiently to understand the content of the complaint and annexes.<\/p>\n Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that does not require proof that the Russian language uses the Cyrillic script. However, the disputed domain name is registered in Latin letters rather than their Cyrillic alternatives, suggesting that the Respondent has knowledge of languages other than Russian. In addition, the written notice sent by the Czech Arbitration Court was in both Russian and English. Furthermore, the fact that the disputed domain names incorporate the well-known brand of the Complainant, which consists of Latin characters only, indicates the Respondent’s familiarity with brands that are not of Russian origin and at least some level of proficiency in English.<\/p>\n The Respondent raised no objection to the proceedings being conducted in English.<\/p>\n Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that it is not unfair to the Parties to proceed in English and finds it appropriate to exercise its discretion and allow the proceedings to be conducted in English.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Ganna Prokhorova"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-03-30 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner, among others, of the following registrations for the trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”:<\/p>\n - International trademark registration n. 920896 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, registered on March 7, 2007 for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 ICGS, including Russian Federation;<\/p>\n - International trademark registration n. 793367 “INTESA”, registered on September 4, 2002 for services in class 36 ICGS, including Russian Federation;<\/p>\n - EU trademark registration n. 5301999 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, filed on September 8, 2006, registered on June 18, 2007 for services in classes 35, 36 and 38 ICGS.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner, among others, of the following domain names bearing the Complainant’s trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO”: All of them are currently connected to the official Complainant’s website: www.intesasanpaolo.com<\/a>.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"THEINTESASANPAOLO.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n
<intesasanpaolo.com>, <intesasanpaolo.org>, <intesasanpaolo.eu>, <intesasanpaolo.info>, <intesasanpaolo.net>, <intesasanpaolo.biz>,
<intesa-sanpaolo.com>, <intesa-sanpaolo.org>, <intesa-sanpaolo.eu>, <intesa-sanpaolo.info>, <intesa-sanpaolo.net>, <intesa-sanpaolo.biz>,
<cliente-intesasanpaolo.com>, <cliente-intesasanpaolo.online>, <clienti-intesasanpaolo.com>, <clientiintesasanpaolo.it>, <intesasanpaolo-clienti.com>, <intesasanpaolo-clienti.net>, and <clientiwebintesasanpaolo.it>.<\/p>\n