{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108465", "time_of_filling": "2026-03-30 10:46:15", "domain_names": [ "unicredit.life" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Unicredit S.p.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Claudio Tamburrino (Barzanò & Zanardo S.p.A.)", "respondent": [ "John Do Doo" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant, UniCredit S.p.A., is one of the leading European banking groups and the second-largest banking institution in Italy. <\/span><\/p>\n

Founded in 1998 through the merger of Credito Italiano and Unicredito, its origins date back to 1870. Today, the Complainant operates in several European jurisdictions, including Italy, Germany, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania and Russia, providing services to millions of customers worldwide. Furthermore, the Complainant is listed on the Borsa Italiana and the Frankfurt Stock Exchange and is included in the Euro Stoxx 50 index of leading European shares. <\/span><\/p>\n

The UNICREDIT trademark has become well known in the banking and financial services sector as previously recognized by UDRP panels in WIPO Case No. D2014-1933, WIPO Case No. DCH2017-0008, CAC-UDRP-104414, CAC-UDRP-102677 and CAC-UDRP-106227.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <unicredit.life> was registered on December 24, 2025 and does not currently resolve to an active website. According to the available WhoIs information, the Respondent’s identity has been concealed through the privacy protection service offered by PrivacyGuardian.org.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

THE COMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/span><\/p>\n

Identical or confusingly similar<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <unicredit.life> is identical or, at least, confusingly similar to the UNICREDIT trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the trademark “UNICREDIT”, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “.life” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, as it is merely a technical requirement for registration purposes.<\/span><\/p>\n

No rights or legitimate interests<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <unicredit.life>. In particular, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, has no relationship with the Complainant, and has never been authorised or licensed to use the UNICREDIT trademarks or to register a domain name incorporating them.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name is not used in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services and currently resolves to an inactive webpage. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Respondent owns any trademark or trade name rights corresponding to the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

Given the distinctive and well-known character of the UNICREDIT trademark, the Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot claim any legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

Registered and used in bad faith<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name <unicredit.life> was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to the Complainant, given the reputation and distinctiveness of the UNICREDIT trademarks, it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration. The disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant obtained its trademark registrations and established a substantial international reputation in the banking and financial sector.<\/span><\/p>\n

Although the disputed domain name is currently inactive, the Complainant points out that previous UDRP panels have consistently held that passive holding may constitute bad faith where, as in the present case, the trademark is well known and no plausible good-faith use of the disputed domain name exists.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant further notes that, considering the reputation of the UNICREDIT brand in the financial sector, the disputed domain name could potentially be used for phishing or fraudulent activities targeting the Complainant’s customers.<\/span><\/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. <\/span><\/p>\n

THE RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/span><\/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 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": [ "Hana Císlerová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-05-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations consisting of or containing the term “UNICREDIT”, including, among others, the following registrations:<\/span><\/p>\n