Intesa-san-paolo-privati.com

The timeline behind intesa-san-paolo-privati.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Case number CAC-UDRP-103705 Time of filing 2021-04-06 10:20:43 Domain names INTESA-SAN-PAOLO-PRIVATI.COM Case administrator Organization Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin) Complainant Organization Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. Complainant representative Organization Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. Respondent Name giulia baccanelli 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. Identification Of Rights The reputation of the Intesa Sanpaolo trademarks and domain names is self-evident and proved by the following documents: - Complainant's trademarks; - Complainant's domain names. Furthermore Intesa Sanpaolo trademarks are extensively registered around the world. The Complainant is the owner, among others, of the following registrations for the trademarks “INTESA” and “INTESA SANPAOLO”: - International trademark registration n. 793367 “INTESA”, granted on September 4, 2002 and duly renewed, in class 36; - International trademark registration n. 920896 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, granted on March 7, 2007 and duly renewed, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, 42; - EU trademark registration n. 12247979 “INTESA”, applied on October 23, 2013 and granted on March 5, 2014, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42; - EU trademark registration n. 5301999 “INTESA SANPAOLO”, applied on September 8, 2006, granted on June 18, 2007 and duly renewed, in classes 35, 36 and 38. Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner, among the 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 www.intesasanpaolo.com. Factual Background THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS The Complainant is the leading Italian banking group and also one of the protagonists in the European financial arena. 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. Intesa Sanpaolo is among the top banking groups in the euro zone, with a market capitalisation exceeding 26,1 billion euro, and the undisputed leader in Italy in all business areas (retail, corporate and wealth management). Thanks to a network of approximately 3,800 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 11,8 million customers. Intesa Sanpaolo has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1.000 branches and over 7,2 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. On May 29, 2020, the Respondent registered the domain name <INTESA-SAN-PAOLO-PRIVATI.COM>. It is more than obvious that the domain name at issue is identical, or – at least – confusingly similar, to the Complainant’s trademarks “INTESA SANPAOLO” and “INTESA”. As a matter of fact, INTESA-SAN-PAOLO-PRIVATI.COM exactly reproduces the well-known trademark “INTESA SANPAOLO”, with the mere addition of the Italian descriptive term “PRIVATI” (meaning “private”). Parties Contentions NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. 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). The addition of the addendum "-PRIVATI-" is not sufficient element to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain name <INTESA-SAN-PAOLO-PRIVATI.COM> is currently passively held. 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). The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use the trademarks INTESA SANPAOLO in a domain name or on a website. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. 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). Given the distinctiveness of the trademark and the content of the website, it is clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks. All these elements lead to the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such websites. It is clear that the main purpose of the Respondent was to use the above website for “phishing” financial information in an attempt to defraud the Complainant’s customers and that Google promptly stopped the illicit activity carried out by the Respondent. 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. Principal Reasons for the Decision 1. The three essential issues under the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are whether: i. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and ii. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and iii. the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 2. The Panel reviewed carefully all documents provided by the Complainant. The Respondent did not provide the Panel with any documents or statements. The Panel also visited all available websites and public information concerning the disputed domain names, namely the WHOIS databases. 3. The UDRP Rules clearly say in its Article 3 that any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint in accordance with the Policy and these Rules. 4. The Panel therefore came to the following conclusions: a) The Complainant has clearly proven that it is a long standing and successful company in the banking services. It is clear that its trademarks and domain names “INTESA SANPAOLO” are well-known. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Indeed, the trademark is incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is therefore deemed identical or confusingly similar. b) It has to be stressed that it was proven that there are no fair rights of the Respondent to the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the name or mark. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest with respect to the disputed domain name. c) The disputed domain name was registered with an intention to attract customers of another well-known domain name/registered trademark holder. Therefore, there cannot be seen any legitimate interest of the Respondent. It is clear that the Complainant's trademarks and website(s) were used by the Complainant long time before the disputed domain name was registered and used. It is therefore concluded that the disputed domain name was registered with an intention to attract customers of another well-known domain name/registered trademark holder. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. For the reasons stated above, it is the decision of this Panel that the Complainant has satisfied all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. For all the reasons stated above, the Complaint is Accepted and the disputed domain name(s) is (are) to be INTESA-SAN-PAOLO-PRIVATI.COM: Transferred PANELLISTS Name Dr. Vít Horáček Date of Panel Decision 2021-06-02 Publish the Decision

Source of record: CAC . Reproduced for research; CAC is the authoritative source.