About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceeding

Accelerated Proceeding

Case No. DSE2020-0034

1. Petitioner

The Petitioner is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. ofItaly, represented by Perani Pozzi Associati – Studio Legale, Italy.

2. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder is Z.X., of China.

3. Domain Name and Procedural History

This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the disputed domain name <intesasanpaolo.se>.

This Petition was filed under the Terms and Conditions of registration (the “.se Policy”) and the Instructions governing Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding for domain names in the top-level domain .se (the “.se Rules”).

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“the Center”) verified that the Petition satisfied the formal requirements of the .se Policy and the .se Rules. In accordance with Section 13 of the .se Rules, the Center formally notified the Domain Holder of the Petition on June 22, 2020. The Domain Holder did not submit any response and, accordingly, the Center notified the Domain Holder’s default on July 23, 2020.

The Center appointed Johan Sjöbeck as the sole Arbitrator in this matter on July 27, 2020. The Arbitrator has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with Section 1 of the .se Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Petitioner is the owner of a number of trademark registrations for INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA that are legally valid in Sweden, including the following:

European Union trademark (EUTM) No. 005301999 INTESA SANPAOLO (word), registered June 18, 2007, for goods and services in classes 35, 36 and 38.

European Union trademark (EUTM) No. 005421227 INTESA SANPAOLO (device), registered September 25, 2007, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.

European Union trademark (EUTM) No. 012247979 INTESA (word), registered March 5, 2014, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.

The disputed domain name <intesasanpaolo.se> was registered by the Domain Holder on December 15, 2019. The disputed domain name is parked for sale by the Registrar.

5. Claim

The Petitioner claims that the disputed domain name shall be transferred to the Petitioner. Furthermore, the Petitioner also requests to have the dispute decided as an Accelerated Proceeding if the Domain Holder does not respond to the Petition.

6. Parties’ Contentions

A. Petitioner

The Petitioner is claiming to be among the top banking groups in the European Union, with a market capitalization exceeding 27.2 billion EUR. With a network of approximately 3,700 branches throughout Italy, the Petitioner offers its services to approximately 11.8 million customers. The Petitioner has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1,000 branches and over 7.2 million customers. Furthermore, the international network specialized in supporting corporate customers is present in 25 countries.

The disputed domain name <intesasanpaolo.se> is identical to the Petitioner’s trademark INTESA SANPAOLO.

The Domain Holder has no rights to the disputed domain name. The Petitioner has not authorized the Domain Holder to use the trademarks INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA.

The disputed domain name is offered for sale via Sedo.com. The Domain Holder has registered and used the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Petitioner or to a competitor of the Petitioner, for valuable consideration in excess of the Domain Holder’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.

B. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder did not file a Response to the Petition.

7. Discussion and Findings

A domain name may, in accordance with the .se Policy Paragraph 7.2, be deregistered or transferred to the party requesting dispute resolution proceedings if all of the following three conditions are fulfilled:

1. The disputed domain name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the party requesting dispute resolution can prove its rights, and

2. The disputed domain name has been registered or used in bad faith, and

3. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the disputed domain name.

All three conditions must be met in order for a petitioner to succeed in its action.

A. The disputed domain name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights.

The Arbitrator finds that the disputed domain name <intesasanpaolo.se> is identical to the Petitioner’s trademark INTESA SANPAOLO and that the Petitioner has proven the first requirement under Paragraph 7.2 of the .se Policy.

B. The disputed domain name has been registered or used in bad faith

Shortly after registering the disputed domain name, the Domain Holder offered it for sale. There is no evidence in the case file that refutes the Petitioner’s submissions. Therefore, the Arbitrator concludes that the Petitioner has also proven the second requirement under Paragraph 7.2 of the .se Policy and that the disputed domain name <intesasanpaolo.se> has been registered and used in bad faith.

C. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the disputed domain name.

Despite given the opportunity, the Domain Holder has not submitted any evidence in this case to demonstrate that the Domain Holder is the owner of a trademark, or any other right, similar to the disputed domain name or that the Domain Holder is commonly known by the disputed domain name. By not submitting a Response, the Domain Holder has failed to invoke any circumstances, which could demonstrate pursuant to Paragraph 7.2 of the .se Policy, any rights or justified interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Consequently, there is no evidence in the case that refutes the Petitioner’s submissions, and the Arbitrator concludes that the Petitioner has also proven the third requirement under Paragraph 7.2 of the .se Policy.

8. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph 7.2 of the .se Policy, the Arbitrator orders that the disputed domain name <intesasanpaolo.se> shall be transferred to the Petitioner.

Johan Sjöbeck
Date: August 4, 2020

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/