WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Hu Lim Case No. D2009-1793 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. of Torino, Italy, represented by Perani Pozzi Tavella, Italy.
The Respondent is Hu Lim of Shanghai, People's Republic of China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , and are registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 29, 2009. On December 30, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 1, 2010, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 6, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 26, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 27, 2010.
The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on February 8, 2010. 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 an Italian banking group, one of the leading banking groups in the European financial area, enjoying an average market share in Italy of about 20% across all banking sectors. The group is active in 34 countries and was formed in 2007 by the merger of two existing Italian banks. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of trade marks INTESA SANPAOLO and LINKS SANPAOLO filed in 2006. The disputed domain names resolve to websites on which banking services other than those of the Complainant are advertised. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain names are either identical to or confusingly similar with their trade marks. It claims that in the case of the disputed domain name it constitutes a case of ‘typosquatting'; in the case of the disputed domain name it consists of a compilation of its registered trade marks; in the case of and the disputed domain name it consists of one of its registered trade marks with the addition of a merely generic Internet term. The Complainant points out that there is no available evidence of the Respondent having rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names and that, as the disputed domain names are being used to divert customers to sites advertising inter alia competing services, presumably for profit, the disputed domain names are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The registered trade marks of the Complainant are highly distinctive for banking services and have a strong reputation in many countries. In the case of , the phonetic similarity of the disputed domain name, particularly for non-Italian speakers, and the proximity of ‘m' and ‘n' on the QWERTY keyboard, make this a clear case of ‘typosquatting'. In the case of the other two disputed domain names, the fact that the names are identical to the whole or part of the Complainant's trade marks, albeit in combination or with the addition of a generic term, make confusion highly likely.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to all the trade marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is for the Complainant to establish at least a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110). In this case the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not submitted any proof that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Nevertheless, given that in this case the likelihood of confusion is strong and the only use of the disputed domain names is use for the advertisement of services competing with those of the Complainant, the Panel considers it highly probable both that the Respondent knew of the Complainant's marks and that it has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is extremely difficult to conceive of an answer to the claim that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith given: the strong likelihood of confusion in this case; the fact that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant's highly distinctive marks; the relative timing of the registration of the disputed domain names, nearly two years after the registration of the Complainant's marks; and that the sites for which the disputed domain names are being used to advertise services competing with those of the Complainant.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Michael J. Spence
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 20, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy