The Complainant is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A., a leading Italian banking group and one of the major players in the European financial sector. The Complainant was formed through the merger of Banca Intesa S.p.A. and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A., effective as of January 1, 2007.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is among the top banking groups in the eurozone, with a market capitalization exceeding EUR 91.62 billion. It holds a leading position in Italy across all business segments, including retail banking, corporate banking, and wealth management. The Complainant operates a network of approximately 2,800 branches throughout Italy, serving around 13.9 million customers, with market shares exceeding 13% in most regions.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also maintains a significant presence in Central and Eastern Europe, with approximately 900 branches serving more than 7.6 million customers. In addition, its international network — focused on supporting corporate clients — operates in 25 countries, particularly in the Mediterranean region and in markets where Italian companies are active, including the United States, Russia, China, and India.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <secures-intesasanpaolo.com> was registered on January 3, 2025.<\/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 <secures-intesasanpaolo.com<\/span>>.<\/span><\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " COMPLAINANT:<\/span><\/p>\n 1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <secures-intesasanpaolo.com> is identical, or at least confusingly similar, to its registered trademarks INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name wholly incorporates its well-known INTESA SANPAOLO mark, adding only the term “secures” at the beginning, separated by a hyphen.<\/p>\n In the Complainant’s view, the addition of the word “secures” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from its trademarks. On the contrary, it reinforces the association with the Complainant, as the term directly relates to the security and financial services the Complainant provides. The Complainant contends that the overall structure of the disputed domain name is misleading and likely to cause confusion among Internet users, who may believe that <secures-intesasanpaolo.com> is connected to, endorsed by, or operated by the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Complainant further notes that the INTESA SANPAOLO trademark enjoys widespread recognition in the banking and financial sector, both in Italy and internationally. It argues that the distinctive nature of its trademarks, combined with the composition of the disputed domain name, gives rise to a significant risk of confusion among Internet users.<\/p>\n <\/span>2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name<\/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 INTESA SANPAOLO 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.<\/p>\n 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 “secures-intesasanpaolo”.<\/p>\n Finally, the Complainant has identified no evidence of fair use or non-commercial use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.<\/p>\n 3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <secures-intesasanpaolo.com> was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n According to the Complainant, its trademarks INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO are distinctive and well known globally, particularly in the banking and financial sectors. The Complainant contends that the Respondent must have been aware of its trademark rights when registering the disputed domain name, which fully incorporates the INTESA SANPAOLO mark, preceded by the term “secures.” In the Complainant’s view, even a basic online search for “INTESA SANPAOLO,” “INTESA,” or “secures intesa sanpaolo” would have revealed the Complainant and its extensive trademark rights. The Complainant submits a screenshot of a Google search as evidence and argues that it is implausible that the disputed domain name was selected without knowledge of the Complainant’s brand. As such, the Complainant claims the registration was clearly opportunistic and indicative of bad faith.<\/p>\n The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the Complainant contends that the Respondent appears to be passively holding the disputed domain name without any legitimate purpose.<\/p>\n In this context, the Complainant notes that the disputed domain name closely resembles domain names used by the Complainant for online banking services. The Complainant asserts that no plausible legitimate use could be made of such a domain name that would not create a risk of confusion or infringement.<\/p>\n The Complainant also refers to the high risk of abuse in light of past phishing incidents involving the Complainant’s customers. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name could easily be used to deceive users by imitating official banking websites and capturing sensitive information — a practice that has previously resulted in financial harm to the Complainant’s clients. Based on the structure and wording of the disputed domain name, the Complainant suspects that it may have been registered with malicious intent, potentially for phishing purposes.<\/p>\n In addition, the Complainant argues that the Respondent may have registered the disputed domain name with the intention to sell it back to the Complainant for a profit. In support of this argument, the Complainant invokes paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, which lists as an example of bad faith registration circumstances indicating that the domain name was acquired primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant (or a competitor) for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs.<\/p>\n Finally, the Complainant states that its legal representatives sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on January 30, 2025, requesting the voluntary transfer of the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not respond or comply with this request.<\/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> <\/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": [
"Barbora Donathová"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-09-04 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 “INTESA SANPAOLO”<\/span>:<\/p>\n - International trademark registration n. 920896 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, granted on March 7, 2007 and duly renewed, in connection with classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;<\/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. 5301999 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, filed on September 8, 2006, granted on June 18, 2007 and duly renewed, in connection with the classes 35, 36 and 38;<\/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 Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner, among others, of the following domain names bearing the signs “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”: INTESASANPAOLO.COM, .ORG, .EU, .INFO, .NET, .BIZ, INTESA-SANPAOLO.COM, .ORG, .EU, .INFO, .NET, .BIZ and 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. All of them are now connected to the official website http:\/\/www.intesasanpaolo.com.<\/span><\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"SECURES-INTESASANPAOLO.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
<\/span><\/p>\n
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/span><\/p>\n