The Complainant is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. of Torino, Italy, represented by Perani Pozzi Tavella, Italy.
The Respondent is Paulo of Dijon, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (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 December 20, 2010.
The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar on December 20, 2010. The Registrar replied on December 21, 2010, confirming that the Domain Name was registered with it, that “paulo” was the registrant, that it appeared that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”) applied to the Domain Name, that the Domain Name was registered or acquired by the present registrant on September 9, 2010, would expire on October 2, 2011, and would remain locked during this proceeding, and that the registration agreement was English. The Registrar stated that it had not received a copy of the Complaint and provided the full contact details held in respect of the Domain Name on its WhoIs database.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the 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 paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a) of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 23, 2010. In accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules, the due date for Response was January 12, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 13, 2011.
The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on January 26, 2011. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules. Having reviewed the file, the Panel is satisfied that the Complaint complied with applicable formal requirements, was duly notified to the Respondent and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the UDRP, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant and its subsidiaries constitute a leading banking group, which includes the second largest bank in Hungary, CIB Bank. The Complainant has registered CIB and CIB BANK as Community marks.
The Domain Name has been pointed to a web page displaying sponsored links relating primarily to banking services.
The Complainant’s attorney sent the Respondent a cease and desist letter on October 8, 2010. No reply was received. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has rights in the marks CIB and CIB BANK by virtue of their registration in its name as Community marks. The Complainant further contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to these marks.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant points out that the Domain Name does not correspond to a trademark or business name of the Respondent and that it is not used for any bona fide offerings.
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In support of this allegation, the Complainant refers to the provision by the Respondent of false contact details in registering the Domain Name. The Complainant also maintains that by using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of association with the Complainant’s mark for commercial gain in the form of click-through commissions on sponsored links. The Complainant further submits that there could be no legitimate use of the Domain Name by the Respondent and that his only other purpose might be to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant.
The Complainant requests a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
As stated above, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is convenient to consider these requirements in turn. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered rights in the marks CIB and CIB BANK.
The Panel is also satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to these marks. The Panel regards the Domain Name as a form of typosquatting. The Panel considers that customers or potential customers of the CIB Bank in the Complainant’s group would assume that this bank had a website at “” and might mistype this address as “www.”.
The first requirement of the UDRP is satisfied B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
On the evidence, the only use made by the Respondent of the Domain Name has been to direct it to a web page displaying sponsored links primarily to websites of competitors of the Complainant. This does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the UDRP.
It is evident that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Nor has the Respondent made any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, by directing it to a web page which displays sponsored links to websites of competitors of the Complainant, the Respondent has made illegitimate and unfair commercial use of it with intent to divert consumers for commercial gain by misleading them. The Panel is satisfied that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) and (iii) of the UDRP do not apply.
On the evidence the Panel finds no other basis on which the Respondent could claim any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The second requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds on the evidence that by directing the Domain Name to a web page containing sponsored links, the Respondent has intentionally used it to attempt to attract Internet users to that web page for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that web page. In accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP, this constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name.
There is no evidence contradicting this presumption. The Panel accordingly concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The third requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. 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 domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Jonathan Turner
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 31, 2011
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy