Westmore · UDRP DecisionIntesasanpaoloeurodesk.info
The Panel ordered transfer of <intesasanpaoloeurodesk.info>. The Domain Name reproduced the Complainant’s INTESA SANPAOLO EURODESK trademark without spaces. The Respondent failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing that he lacked rights or legitimate interests. Given the unusual and specific character of the name, the website’s commercial links, and the absence of any justification for adopting the Domain Name, the Panel found registration and use in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The timeline behind intesasanpaoloeurodesk.info
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind intesasanpaoloeurodesk.info — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates how an exact match to a highly unusual, subsidiary-specific trademark can provide compelling evidence of deliberate targeting. It also shows that a nominally educational or content-oriented website will not establish legitimacy where its name does not explain the disputed domain and the site contains commercial links. The Respondent’s default did not itself determine the case, but it left the Complainant’s prima facie case and the Panel’s targeting inference unrebutted.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Zack hanzel Case No. D2014-1880 1. The Parties The Complainant is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. of Torino, Italy, represented by Perani Pozzi Associati - Studio Legale, Italy. The Respondent is Zack hanzel, Content Maker of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name And Registrar The disputed domain name, <intesasanpaoloeurodesk.info> (the “Domain Name”), is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 24, 2014. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 27, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming the Respondent as the registrant and providing contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on October 31, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 20, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 25, 2014. The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on November 27, 2014. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a leading Italian bank based in Turin. One of its subsidiaries is a private company established in Belgium, named “Intesa Sanpaolo Eurodesk S.p.r.l.”. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of a number of trade mark registrations of or including the name “Intesa Sanpaolo”. For present purposes it is only necessary to refer to one of those registrations, namely Community Trade Mark registration No. 6701239 INTESA SANPAOLO EURODESK registered on January 20, 2009 (application filed February 27, 2008) for a wide range of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42. The Domain Name was registered on May 23, 2014 and has been connected to a blog/web content site entitled “Education Zone” and featuring a copyright notice in the name of “Sanpaolo Education & Entertainment Science”. The website includes a wide range of posts ranging from “Video Game Design Ideas: From Brainstorming To Storyboarding” to “Why Scholarships are Important” and from “The Advantages of Living In Texas” to “Learn Transcendental Meditation And Lower High Blood Pressure”. The website features template slides apparently enabling users to create their own slide presentations, a facility consistent with the name of the Respondent’s organization, “Content Maker”. The website also features links to other sites. When the Panel visited the Respondent’s website on November 29, 2014, the Panel found that the link appearing under the heading of “Partner links” was to a Turkish pornographic site and that the top link under the heading “Partner” was to a job-finder website based in England. On August 25, 2014 the Complainant’s representatives wrote to the Respondent drawing to the latter’s attention the Complainant’s trade mark rights and seeking, inter alia, transfer of the Domain Name. The Respondent did not reply. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered trade marks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion And Findings A. General According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that: (i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s INTESA SANPAOLO EURODESK trade mark (absent the spaces) and the generic top level domain identifier (“gTLD”) “.info”. Neither the absence of the spaces, nor the presence of the gTLD diminishes the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trade mark. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. It asserts that the Respondent has no connection with the Complainant or its Belgian subsidiary named “Intesa Sanpaolo Eurodesk S.p.r.l.” and it produces evidence in the form of screenshots of the website to which the Domain Name is connected to demonstrate that there is nothing about the Respondent or the use to which the Domain Name is being put to justify use of the Domain Name. The Domain Name does not correspond to the name of the Respondent nor is it the name of the entity (“Sanpaolo Education & Entertainment Science”) which purports to be using the website. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which if found by the Panel to be present, demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. If, as is the case here, the onus is on the Complainant to prove the three elements of paragraph 4 of the Policy, why should the Respondent be required to adduce any evidence of the kind referred to in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy? In Julian Barnes v. Old Barn Studios Limited, WIPO Case No. D2001-0121 this Panel answered that question as follows: “While the overall burden of proof is on the Complainant, this element involves the Complainant proving matters, which are peculiarly within the knowledge of the Respondent. It involves the Complainant in the often impossible task of proving a negative. In the Panel’s view the correct approach is as follows: the Complainant makes the allegation and puts forward what he can in support (e.g. he has rights to the name, the Respondent has no rights to the name of which he is aware, he has not given any permission to the Respondent). Unless the allegation is manifestly misconceived, the Respondent has a case to answer and that is where paragraph 4(c) of the Policy comes in. If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head.” On the evidence before the Panel, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has raised a prima facie case sufficient to call for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has elected not to respond to the Complainant’s allegations. In the absence of an explanation from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant contends that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The name “Intesa Sanpaolo Eurodesk” is unique and specific. It is specific to the Complainant’s Belgian subsidiary, whose name is the subject of a trade mark registration held in the name of the Complainant. As indicated in section 6.C. above, on the evidence before the Panel, there is nothing about the Respondent or the use to which the Domain Name is being put to justify the Respondent’s adoption and use of the Domain Name. As indicated in section 4 above, the use to which the Domain Name is being put appears to be a blog/web content site, but featuring commercial links to other businesses, including a Turkish pornographic site and a job finder site based in the United Kingdom. The Panel concludes that it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent is deriving a commercial benefit from his use of the Domain Name. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the name of the Complainant’s Belgian subsidiary is so unusual that it is inconceivable that the Respondent can have adopted the Domain Name otherwise than with the Complainant’s subsidiary (and trade mark) in mind. In the view of the Panel, the overwhelming probability is that the Respondent adopted the Domain Name in the hope and expectation that Internet users would be attracted to his website on the back of the goodwill attached to the Complainant and its Belgian subsidiary and that as a result he would derive revenue from the web content service provided via the website and/or from the commercial links featured on the website. The Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name, <intesasanpaoloeurodesk.info>, be transferred to the Complainant. Tony Willoughby Sole Panelist Date: November 29, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around intesasanpaoloeurodesk.info
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.