The Complainant is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. of Turin, Italy, represented by Perani Pozzi Associati, Italy.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, See PrivacyG of Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America / Domain Admin / This Domain is For Sale, Home of Domains of Phoenix, Arizona, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 27, 2018. On March 27, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 27, 2018, 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 the Complainant on March 28, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 30, 2018.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 5, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 25, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 26, 2018.
The Center appointed Philippe Gilliéron as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 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 an important banking group in the eurozone, with a market capitalisation exceeding EUR 46.4 billion. It enjoys a network of approximately 4,800 branches with market shares above 16% in most Italian regions, servicing approximately 12.6 million customers.
The Complainant is present in 26 countries, including the Mediterranean area, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, China and India. It also has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1,100 branches and over 7.6 million customers.
The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks consisting of the terms "xme" and "xme conto" such as, notably, the European Union Trade Mark ("EUTM") no. 1554209 XME registered on November 1, 2016 and EUTM no. 17009911 XME CONTO that was registered on December 1, 2017 in classes 9 and 36 with a priority date as of July 19, 2017.
Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner, among the others, of the following domain names: , , and .
On July 19, 2017, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name . According to evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page where it is offered for sale for USD 950.
On February 26, 2018, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, inviting the latter to transfer the disputed domain name in its favor. The Respondent did not respond. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant first affirms that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its XME and XME CONTO trademarks as it entirely incorporates said trademarks. It then considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it has never been authorized by the Complainant to use the trademarks XME or XME CONTO and that the Respondent is not known under the name "Xme Conto". Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith: the fact that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark indicates that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant's trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name ; the fact that the disputed domain name is offered for sale on a parking page for USD 950 evidences the fact that the disputed domain name is used in 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 this Panel to "[…] decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant has to prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant holds several trademarks consisting of the terms "xme" and "xme conto" such as, notably, the EUTM no. 1554209 XME registered on November 1, 2016 and EUTM no. 17009911 XME CONTO that was registered on December 1, 2017 in classes 9 and 36 with a priority date as of July 19, 2017.
UDRP panels widely agree that incorporating a trademark into a domain name can be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark for purpose of the Policy (see, e.g., Uniroyal Engineered Products, Inc. v. Nauga Network Services,WIPO Case No. D2000-0503; Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. Sanchai Aree,WIPO Case No. D2002-0358; and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Relish Entreprises,WIPO Case No. D2007-1629). Such happens to be the case here.
This is all the more true when the inserted trademark consists of the sole and only element of the disputed domain name. Such happens to be the case.
As a result, the Panel considers paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to be satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii), the Complainant has to demonstrate that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
As the panel stated in Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,WIPO Case No. D2000-0624, demonstrating that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name "would require complainant to prove a negative, a difficult, if not impossible, task." Thus, in that decision, the panel opined that "[w]here a complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, it is incumbent upon the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion." Following that decision, subsequent UDRP panels acknowledged that it is deemed sufficient for a complainant to make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. Once a prima facie case has been made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests. If it fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy (see, e.g., section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0")).
In the present case, the Complainant is the owner of the trademarks XME and XME CONTO. The Complainant has no business or other relationship with the Respondent. The Complainant thus has made a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Absent any Response, there is no doubt in the Panel's opinion that the Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Consequently, in light of the above, the Panel considers paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy to be fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For a complaint to succeed, a UDRP panel must be satisfied that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
In the present case, the Complainant is the owner of several trademarks consisting in all or in part of the terms "xme" or "xme conto". The Respondent was obviously aware of the Complainant's trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. As a result, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
The Panel finds it hard to find any plausible explanation as to the reason why the Respondent would have chosen to register the disputed domain name which coincidentally occurred on the very same day the XME CONTO EUTM application was filed by the Complainant with a view to use the disputed domain name in good faith.
Even if the above coincidence regarding the registration of the disputed domain name and filing of the trademark application are disregarded, the Complainant's EUTM XME was registered on November 1, 2016 which is well in advance of the registration of the disputed domain name and it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of its existence.
Based upon the overall circumstances of the case, the Panel has no doubt that the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent to exploit the Complainant's goodwill, either in order to sell it in excess of the registration costs as evidenced by the offer for sale of USD 950, or to try and attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark.
The Respondent having defaulted did not in any case prove otherwise.
Consequently, the Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Philippe Gilliéron
Sole Panelist
Date: May 8, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy