{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107617", "time_of_filling": "2025-05-29 09:35:41", "domain_names": [ "FIDEURAM.XYZ" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.", "respondent": [ "Yi Wei Ren" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A. Complainant's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

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 between Banca Intesa S.p.A. and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A., two of the top Italian banking groups. Intesa Sanpaolo is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalization exceeding 83, 4 billion euro, and the undisputed leader in Italy, in all business areas. It has 3,000 branches capillary with market shares of more than 13% in most Italian regions, serving 14 million customers. It has 900 branches in Central-Eastern Europe with 7.5 million customers. Fideuram – Intesa Sanpaolo Private Banking is the Intesa Sanpaolo Private Banking Division.<\/p>\n

B. Respondent's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceedings and has consequently made no factual allegations. The Respondent is Yi Wei Ren, based at the address of Xin An Jie Dao Rong Chuang Guang Chang, Huai An Shi, Jiang Su, Post Code 223002, China.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on November 4, 2024 by the Respondent, as confirmed by the Registrar. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page in which the same is offered for sale.<\/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": "

A. COMPLAINANT <\/strong><\/p>\n

Language of the Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n

With respect to the language of the proceedings, the Panel notes as follows:<\/p>\n

The Complaint is written in English. According to the registrar's verification response ('the RVR'), the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Following the RVR, and at the request of CAC, the Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of this administrative proceeding, on the following grounds:<\/p>\n

First of all, the Complainant is an Italian company, while the Respondent is a Chinese citizen and the language of the registration agreement is Chinese. Given the above, the present Complaint was written in English, an international language comprehensible to a wide range of Internet users worldwide, including the ones living in Italy and in China.<\/p>\n

Since the spirit of Paragraph 11 of the Rules seems to be to ensure fairness in the selection of language by giving full considerations to the parties’ level of comfort with each language, English seemed to be the fair language in the present proceeding.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, it is not possible to ignore that the present dispute has been started because the Respondent deliberately registered a domain name which is identical to a well-known registered trademark legitimately owned and used in Italy and China by the Complainant and its parent company Fideuram – Intesa Sanpaolo Private Banking from several years. It is inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of such circumstance when it registered the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n

I. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks. It exactly reproduces the well-known trademark “FIDEURAM”, resulting obviously confusing and misleading for Internet users, who might think that it is somehow connected to Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. and Fideuram Intesa Sanpaolo Private Banking, which is not true.<\/p>\n

II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the grounds: i) the disputed domain name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent; ii) the Respondent is not commonly known as “FIDEURAM”; iii) the Respondent has not any fair or non-commercial uses of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant’s trademarks “FIDEURAM” and “FIDEURAM INTESA SANPAOLO PRIVATE BANKING” 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 trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. In addition, if the Respondent had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wordings “FIDEURAM” and “FIDEURAM INTESA SANPAOLO PRIVATE BANKING”, the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name (par. 4(b)(i) of the Policy). The disputed domain name redirects to a parking page in which the same is offered for sale.<\/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.<\/p>\n

B. 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 language of the registration agreement is Chinese. The Complainant has requested that the language of proceedings be English. The Respondent did not respond on the issue of the language of the proceedings and did not reject the Complainant’s request.<\/p>\n

The Panel is given discretion under Paragraph 11 of the Rules to determine the appropriate language of the administrative proceeding. Paragraph 10 of the Rules mentions that the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. Based on the following factors, the Panel has decided that it would be fair and equitable to all parties to have the language of the proceedings be English:<\/p>\n