Westmore · UDRP DecisionIntesasanpaoloonline.online
The Panel ordered transfer of <intesasanpaoloonline.online>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INTESA SANPAOLO trademark because it incorporated the mark’s distinctive word elements and merely added the descriptive term “online.” The Respondent had not been authorized or licensed to use the mark and filed no response. Bad-faith registration was found from the well-known status of the mark and the Respondent’s presumed awareness of it. Bad-faith use was supported by a Google Safe Browsing warning and, independently, by passive holding where no plausible good-faith use presented itself.
The timeline behind intesasanpaoloonline.online
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 intesasanpaoloonline.online — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how a domain reproducing a well-known banking mark and adding the term “online” may present a particularly strong impersonation signal. It also shows two alternative grounds for bad-faith use: a third-party browser safety warning and passive holding where the composition of the domain leaves no plausible good-faith use.
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. Courage Ogiugo Case No. D2018-0383 1. The Parties The Complainant is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. of Torino, Italy, represented by Perani Pozzi Associati, Italy. The Respondent is Courage Ogiugo of Chiuduno, Italy. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <intesasanpaoloonline.online> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 20, 2018. On February 21, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 22, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 5, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 25, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 26, 2018. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on April 3, 2018. 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 major Italian banking group and is the owner of several registrations for the trademark INTESA SANPAOLO, including the International Registration No. 920896 INTESA SANPAOLO, granted on March 7, 2007, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42, covering among other, Australia, China, United States of America, Japan, Russian Federation and European Union Trade Mark registration No. 5301999 INTESA SANPAOLO, granted on June 18, 2007, in classes 35, 36 and 38. The disputed domain name was registered on August 21, 2017, and is passively held. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends in essence: - that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark INTESA SANPAOLO; - that the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark INTESA SANPAOLO, and that the disputed domain name does not correspond to the Respondent’s name; - that the Respondent is not making any fair or noncommercial use of the disputed domain name; - that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because it must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark; - that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because it has been blocked by Google Safe Browsing through a warning page, which indicates that the Respondent’s purpose was to use the disputed domain name for illicit “phishing” activities. - that in any event, passive holding of a domain name qualifies as use in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has shown that it owns several registrations for the trademark INTESA SANPAOLO, including the International Registration No. 920896 INTESA SANPAOLO, granted on March 7, 2007, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42, covering among other Australia, China, United States of America, Japan, Russian Federation and European Union Trade Mark registration No. 5301999 INTESA SANPAOLO, granted on June 18, 2007, in classes 35, 36 and 38. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, because it includes the identical distinctive word elements “Intesa Sanpaolo”, whereas the addition of the descriptive word “online” does not dispel confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant contends, credibly, that the Respondent has no right to use, nor other rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In the absence of any Response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent was not authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Considering that the Complainant is a major Italian banking group and that its trademark INTESA SANPAOLO is well known, the Panel concludes that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark and that it registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The fact that the disputed domain name has been blocked by Google Safe Browsing through a warning page is a strong indication that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith by the Respondent. In any event, the Panel also finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, since it is well-established that the passive holding of a domain name can, in cases such as this, where no plausible good faith use of the domain name presents itself, constitute use in bad faith ( Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows , WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 ). The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 disputed domain name <intesasanpaoloonline.online> be transferred to the Complainant. Andrea Mondini Sole Panelist Date: April 10, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around intesasanpaoloonline.online
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.