WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Monica Balestro

Case No. D2018-0867

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 Monica Balestro of Milano, Italy.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <serviziointesacardaiuto.com> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 18, 2018. On April 18, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 18, 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 April 23, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 13, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 16, 2018.

The Center appointed Anna Carabelli as the sole panelist in this matter on May 25, 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 leading Italian banking group resulting from the merger between Banca Intesa S.p.A. and San Paolo IMI S.p.A.

The Complainant is the owner of multiple registrations for the marks INTESA and INTESA SAN PAOLO, including:

- International trademark registration No. 793367 INTESA, registered on September 4, 2002 and renewed until September 4, 2022;

- European Union trademark registration No. 2803773 INTESA, registered on November 7, 2003;

- United States trademark registration No. 4196961 INTESA, registered on August 28, 2012;

- International Trademark Registration No. 920896 INTESA SANPAOLO, registered on March 7, 2007;

- European Union Trademark Registration No. 5301999 INTESA SANPAOLO, registered on June 18, 2007.

The Complainant also owns the following domain names:

<intesasanpaolo.com>, also registered withthe following extensions “.org”, .info, “.biz” and “.mobi”;

<intesa-sanpaolo.com>, also registered withthe following extensions “.org”, “.info”, “.eu”, “.net”, “.biz “.

The above domain names resolve to the Complainant’s official website “www.intesasanpalo.com”.

The Complainant has provided supporting evidence of the above.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <serviziointesacardaiuto.com> on November 9, 2017.

The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends:

- that the disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s trademarks, since it contains the word INTESA with the mere addition of generic terms (i.e., “servizio” -meaning “service”, “card” and “aiuto” - meaning “help”) which are clearly descriptive of the on-line banking and security services offered by the Complainant;

- that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since: (i) the Complainant has no relationship with the Respondent; (ii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: and (iii) the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use;

- that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith since the Complainant’s trademark are distinctive and well-known. Therefore, the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s cannot see a use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not amount to bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) The domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark or service mark; 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.

Paragraph 4.b of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances which for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances any one of which, if proved by Respondent, shall be evidence of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(ii) above.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has proved that it owns trademark registrations for the marks INTESA and INTESA SAN PAOLO.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, as it incorporates INTESA with the addition of generic terms (“servizio” meaning “service”, “card” and “aiuto” meaning “help”), which are descriptive of or connected with the Complainant’s business.

It is a well-established principle that descriptive or generic additions to a trademark do not avoid confusing similarity of domain names and trademarks (GA Modefine SA v. Riccardo Bin Kara-Mat, WIPO Case No. D2002-0195; Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0022; Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Gray West International, WIPO Case No. D2000-1219; Toshiba Corporation v. Distribution Purchasing & Logistics Corp, WIPO Case No. D2000-0464; eBay Inc. v. ebayMoving / Izik Apo,WIPOCase No. D2006-1307).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established element 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorized, licensed or permitted the Respondent to use the trademarks INTESA or INTESA SAN PAOLO.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and cannot demonstrate any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has established prima facie evidence that none of the three circumstances establishing a legitimate interest or rights mentioned above applies. As stressed by many WIPO UDRP decisions, in such a case the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to rebut the evidence (see among others Carolina Herrera, Ltd. v. Alberto Rincon Garcia, WIPO Case No. D2002-0806; International Hospitality Management – IHM S.p.A. v. Enrico Callegari Ecostudio, WIPO Case No. D2002-0683; OSRAM GmbH. v. Mohammed Rafi/Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2015-1149).

Because the Respondent failed to submit an answer to the Complaint, and given that the allegations of the Complaint prima facie do not raise substantial doubts, the Panel accepts as true all allegations set forth in the Complaint and holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Accordingly the Panel finds that the Complainant has established element 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks INTESA and INTESA SAN PAOLO in the field of banking and financial services is established here and has been recognized in previous UDRP decisions (Intesa San Paolo S.p.a. v. Rumero Marcone, WIPO Case No. D2018-0090; Intesa San Paolo S.p.a. v. Edvin Hoxhalli / Adrian Moraras, WIPO Case No. D2016-0392).

Therefore, the Respond knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name (see Revlon Consumer Product Corp v. Domain Manager, WIPO Case No. D2003-0602; Microsoft Corporation v. Superkay Worldwide Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-0071; Revlon Consumer Product Corp. v. Easy Weight Loss Info, WIPO Case No. D2010-0936; Hermes International SCA v. Cui Zhenhua, WIPO Case No. D2010-1743; Vertu Corporation Limited v. David Szn and Jun Luo, WIPO Case No. D2015-0185).

The lack of active use of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith (see Arla Foods Amba v. Joan P Evans, WIPO Case No. D2016-0473; Vertu Corporation Limited v. David Szn and Jun Luo, WIPO Case No. D2015-0185; Accor, So Luxury HMC v. Youness Itsmail, WIPO Case No. D2015-0287; McGrigors LLP v. Fraser Coutts, WIPO Case No. DCO2011-0022).

According to section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith. In the Panel’s view the circumstances of the present case (namely: reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks, no response to the Complaint, location of the Respondent, impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the disputed domain name) clearly show the Respondent’s bad faith.

Accordingly the Panel finds the Complainant has established element 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, <serviziointesacardaiuto.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Anna Carabelli
Sole Panelist
Date: June 8, 2018