The Complainant is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. of Turin, Italy, represented by Perani Pozzi Associati, Italy.
The Respondent is Domain Privacy Service Fbo Registrant, The Endurance International Group, Inc. of Burlington, Massachusetts, United States of America ("United States") / Mirco Monaro of Naples, Italy / Emanuela Cianciotta of Rome, Italy / Lucia Castone of Milan, Italy / Chiarone Troncona of Rome, Italy / Carlo Alessandro of Aosta, Italy / Rumeno Rumeno of Rome, Italy / Federico Troncone of Rome, Italy / Maurizio Cardone of Rome, Italy. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , and are registered with FastDomain, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 29, 2018. On June 29, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June, 30, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 11, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On the same day, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint. On July 13, 2018, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint removing one domain name.
The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amendments 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 July 16, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 5, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 6, 2018.
The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on August 22, 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.
The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties.
Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent". Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent.
The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreements, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A., a leading Italian banking group, owning many trademark registrations for INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO, including:
- International Trademark Registration No. 793367 INTESA, registered on September 4, 2002;
- European Union Trademark Registration No. 2803773 INTESA, registered on November 17, 2003;
- 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 operates its main website at "" and also owns several other domain names connected to the latter, including , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and .
The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above.
The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates: on May 22, 2018; on June 1, 2018; on April 19, 2018; on February 19, 2018; on April 23, 2018; on May 31, 2018; on May 22, 2018; and on June 5, 2018.
At the time of filing the Complaint, the websites at the disputed domain names , , and have been blocked by Google Safe Browsing through a warning page as possible phishing webpages, while the websites at the disputed domain names , , and were not active. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain names , , , , , , and are confusingly similar to its trademarks INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO.
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to use them, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor is the Respondent making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith, since the Complainant's trademarks INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO are distinctive and well known all around the world. Therefore, the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain names and the Complainant cannot see a use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent that would not amount to bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant's contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(e) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record.
A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn (see, e.g., Reuters Limited v Global Net 2000, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0441; Microsoft Corporation v. Freak Films Oy,WIPO Case No. D2003-0109; SSL International PLC v. Mark Freeman,WIPO Case No. D2000-1080; Altavista Company v. Grandtotal Finances Limited et. al.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0848; Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Nord Europe v. Marketing Total S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2007-0288.) 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(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. Consolidation of Multiple Respondents
The Complaint and amendments to the Complaint were filed against nine registrants, and the Complainant has requested consolidation of multiple respondents. No objection to this request was made by the Respondent.
Pursuant to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 4.11.2, "[w]here a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario." The Panel may consider a range of factors to determine whether consolidation is appropriate, such as examining relevant registrant contact information, and any naming patterns in the disputed domain names, or other evidence of respondent affiliation that indicate common control of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant notes that the registrants used the same privacy service, that all registrants used the same registrar, that the registrants, other than the privacy shield, are all located in Italy, but with false physical addresses, all disputed domain names have a similar naming pattern, each with the Complainant's mark and additional Italian or English terms, and are passively held. The Panel finds that there is sufficient evidence that the disputed domain names are subject to common control, and that it would be procedurally efficient, fair and equitable to all Parties to accept the Complainant's consolidation request. The Panel further notes that the Respondent did not object to the consolidation request. The Panel therefore accepts the Complainant's consolidation request. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademarks INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO, both by registration and by acquired reputation and that the disputed domain names , , , , , , and are confusingly similar to the trademarks INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO.
The Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of descriptive terms or letters to a domain name does not necessarily distinguish the domain name from a trademark (see, e.g., Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti,WIPO Case No. D2005-0037; Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub,WIPO Case No. D2003-0709; America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart,WIPO Case No. D2000-0713). The addition of the of the descriptive words "bank", "conferma-recapito" (which means "address confirmation" in Italian), "groups", "redire" (short for "redirection"), "gruppo" (which means "group" in Italian), "reindirizzamento" (which means "redirection" in Italian), "secure" and "verifica" (which means "verification" in Italian) does not therefore prevent the disputed domain names from being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") suffix, in this case ".com", may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. V,WIPO Case No. D2000-0607).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has failed to file a response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5.
The Complainant in its Complaint and as set out above has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. It asserts that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain names, and the Panel is unable to establish any such rights or legitimate interests on the basis of the evidence in front of it.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that "for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent's] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent's] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent's] website or location."
Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain names, the reputation of the Complainant's trademarks INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO in the field of banking and financial services is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant and deliberately registered the disputed domain names because they are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
Regarding the use in bad faith of the disputed domain names, as far as the disputed domain names pointing to an inactive website are concerned, the Panel considers that bad faith may exist even in cases of so-called "passive holding", as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. In the circumstances of these cases, the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to bad faith use.
On the other hand, considering the disputed domain names pointing to websites that have been blocked as supposedly operating phishing activities or other fraudulent use, it is reasonable to infer, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it is more likely than not that fraud or other illegitimate use was the purpose for which the disputed domain names were registered.
In general, considering all the disputed domain names together, the Panel cannot see a use of them by the Respondent that would not amount to bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 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 names, , , , , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: August 31, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy