Complainant is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. of Torino, Italy, represented by Perani Pozzi Associati - Studio Legale, Italy.
Respondent is Hu Tao of Yueyang, Hunan, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 8, 2013. On November 8, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 11, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 12, 2013 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to Complaint on November 15, 2013.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 18, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 8, 2013. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 9, 2013.
The Center appointed Sally M. Abel as the sole panelist in this matter on December 20, 2013. 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
Complainant is the proprietor of numerous INTESA SANPAOLO registered service marks and trademarks, in Italy (Registration No. 1042140), the European Union (Registration No. 5301999), and elsewhere.
Complainant also owns the Internet domain names , , , , , and .
Complainant, a top banking group in the Euro zone, resulted from the 2007 merger of two Italian banking groups, Banca Intesa S.p.A. and Sanpaolo IMI S.p.A. Complainant has a market capitalization of over EUR 29 billion and serves over 11 million customers.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 29, 2013, without Complainant’s authorization. On October 22, 2013, Complainant’s counsel sent a letter to Respondent informing him of Complainant’s rights in the disputed domain name, and requesting the immediate deactivation and cancellation or voluntary transfer of the disputed domain name. On October 23, 2013, Respondent replied to Complainant’s counsel, stating: “I [k]now my country don’t [sic] have this trademark. I will use this domain building [sic] a website, [b]ut has not yet begun. If you want it, you have to pay me money.”
The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying a banner picture of a generic bank building with the disputed domain name listed, along with several “Related Links” to sponsored listings for online banking, loans, mortgages, and other financial services. There is also a “Related Link” titled “Intesa Sanpaolo,” which leads to other sponsored listings titled “Intesa Sanpaolo”, none of which resolve to Complainant’s official website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, if not virtually identical to Complainant’s INTESA SANPAOLO marks, that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, and use as set forth above, constitutes bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Respondent has defaulted. Paragraph 14 of the Rules provides that the Panel may draw such inferences from such a default as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel infers from Respondent’s silence that Complainant’s allegations are, in fact, correct. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s INTESA SANPAOLO marks. Respondent has simply rearranged one letter, moving the location of the “n” in “sanpaolo” to before the “sa.” This is a clear example of typosquatting given that the disputed domain name is only a very slight variation from the INTESA SANPAOLO mark, and is being used to advertise offerings from financial institutions other than Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. There is no connection between the terms comprised in the disputed domain name with Respondent or with any of Respondent’s purported activities. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Respondent’s selection of the disputed domain name and use of that domain name in association with Respondent’s sponsored linking to competing financial services to that of Complainant, devoid of any relationship with or nexus to Complainant’s INTESA SANPAOLO brand, as well as Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant, obviously for a profit (“you have to pay me money”), constitute bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. When using the disputed domain name in connection with Respondent’s sponsored linking to competing financial services to that of Complainant, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract users to Respondent’s site, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s INTESA SANPAOLO marks (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv)).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling the disputed domain name to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of any out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(i)). 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Sally M. Abel
Sole Panelist
Date: January 7, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy