{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108624",
    "time_of_filling": "2026-05-12 15:13:18",
    "domain_names": [
        "unicreditlife.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Unicredit S.p.A. "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Claudio Tamburrino (Barzanò & Zanardo S.p.A.)",
    "respondent": [
        "Wen Qiang Zhou"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><strong>A. The Complainant's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant is an Italian multinational banking group headquartered in Milan, the second-largest Italian banking group and the 44th-largest bank in the world. It is listed on the Borsa Italian and Frankfurt Stock Exchange, featuring as stock of the Euro Stoxx 50 index of leading shares. It remains Italy&rsquo;s leading bank by assets under management and revenues, serving approximately 26 million customers with core markets extending not only to Italy, but also to many other countries and a net profit in 2025 of 23.9 billion EUR.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>B. The Respondent's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has consequently made no factual allegations. The Respondent is Wen Qiang Zhou, based at the address of Zhong Guan Cun Ke Ji Yuan, Shi Xia Qu, Bei Jing Shi, Post Code 100036, China. The disputed domain name was registered on September 25, 2024 by the Respondent, as confirmed by the Registrar. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name was redirected to a parking page where it was offered for sale.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p><strong>A. THE COMPLAINANT <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Language of the Proceedings&nbsp; <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complaint is written in English. According to the registrar's verification response, the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. The Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of this administrative proceeding in light of the following circumstances:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span>The Complainant does not understand Chinese. It is quite burdensome and expensive to translate the Complaint with all its annexes;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The translation would unnecessarily delay this proceeding; <\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The web page to&nbsp;which&nbsp;the&nbsp;disputed&nbsp;domain name&nbsp;redirects&nbsp;is&nbsp;in English;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark and the English term &ldquo;life&rdquo;.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span>The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows: <\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>I. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span>In UDRP cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark under the first element of the UDRP;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The addition of the generic term &ldquo;life&rdquo; is not sufficient to prevent the finding of confusing similarity.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the grounds:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span>The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has consequently made no factual allegations on its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The Complainant has no relationship with the Respondent;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark or to register the disputed domain name;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>There is no evidence to prove that the Respondent has acquired any rights in a trademark or trade name corresponding to the disputed domain name;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong><span>III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith on the grounds:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span> Its trademark is distinctive and well-known. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of it with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website. It is highly possible that the disputed domain name was registered for phishing and fraud activities against UNICREDIT customers;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The disputed domain name is passively held, which would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The disputed domain name is redirected to a parking page where it is offered for sale at USD 40.000;<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span>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<p><strong>B. THE RESPONDENT <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p><strong>Language of the proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The language of the registration agreement is Chinese. The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceedings be English. The Respondent did not&nbsp;respond to the issue of the language of the proceedings and did not reject the Complainant&rsquo;s request.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>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&nbsp;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&nbsp;factors, the Panel has decided that it would be fair and equitable to all parties to have the language of the proceedings be English:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span>The Complaint was written in English, an international language comprehensible to a wide range of internet users worldwide, including those living in China;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>While determining the language of the administrative proceedings, the Panel has a duty to consider who would suffer the greatest inconvenience as a result of the Panel's determination. On the one hand, the determination of English as the language of this administrative proceeding &ndash; a widely spoken language &ndash; is unlikely to cause the Respondent any inconvenience. The determination of Chinese as the language of this administrative proceeding, on the other hand, is very likely to cause the Complainant inconvenience, and to interfere with the overall due expedition of the proceedings under the Rules. See Burberry Limited v Fei Cheng, CAC-UDRP-106643;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceedings be English. The Respondent did not respond to reject its request.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span>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.<\/span><\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Yunze Lian"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-06-22 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant has provided evidence of its ownership of registered trademark rights in the trademark UNICREDIT in numerous jurisdictions.<\/p>\n<p>&bull;&nbsp; Italian registration No. 0001011970, registered on June 13, 2006 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;<br \/>&bull;&nbsp; European Union Trademark No. 002911105, registered on July 14, 2009 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;<br \/>&bull;&nbsp; International registration No 897567, registered on August 7, 2006 in class 36.<\/p>\n<p>The registration dates of the trademark predate the registration date of the disputed domain name, &lt;unicreditlife.com &gt;, registered on September 25, 2024.<br \/>The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name, &lt;unicredit.it&gt;, used as its main website since October 23, 2007.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "unicreditlife.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}