The Complainant is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. of Torino, Italy represented by Perani Pozzi Tavella, Italy.
The Respondent is Feng Wang of JiangSu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 13, 2012. On April 16, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, LLC. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 16, 2012, GoD, LLC. 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 April 19, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 9, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 10, 2012.
The Center appointed WiIliam A. Van Caenegem as the sole panelist in this matter on June 5, 2012. 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 the owner of many trademark registrations for the mark INTESA SANPAOLO, inter alia Community Trademark Registration No 5301999 granted on June 18, 2007 in classes 35, 36 and 3; Italian Trademark Registration No 1042140 granted on March 7, 2007 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42; and International trademark Registration No 9209896 granted on March 7, 2007 and designating China, in classes 9, 176, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.
The disputed domain name was created on September 8, 2011. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is a major Italian bank. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trade mark INTESA SANPAOLO.
Further the Complainant asserts that nobody has been licensed or authorized to use the disputed domain name. The Respondent is also not commonly known as “Intesasanpaolo” nor is there any noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant asserts that the ‘Intesa Sanpaolo’ brand is known around the world and is distinctive, so the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s mark when the disputed domain name was registered. The disputed domain name would not have been registered by the Respondent but for the fame of the Complainant’s trademarks, which amounts to bad faith.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is not being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Moreover, there is evidence that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling it for valuable consideration exceeding out of pocket expenses. The parking page connected to the domain name displayed Paypal payment options, an asking price of USD 100,000.00, an email address and phone number and the message “Legal Battle Warriors, Mr Wang”. According to the Complainant, this is incontrovertible evidence that the Respondent intended to target the Complainant for an undue profit.
Further, the Complainant asserts that when it sent a cease and desist demand to the Respondent, it received an email response stating “Domain for sale, we also have the full legal preparation, Please don’t waste energy”. The Complainant asserts that the payment amount asked for the disputed domain name is clear evidence of bad faith, as it greatly exceeds possible expenses.
Therefore the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was also registered and 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 disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark INTESA SANPAOLO. For present purposes, the contraction of the two terms and the addition of the top level suffix “.co” can be ignored.
Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark INTESA SANPAOLO B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant’s trade mark INTESA SANPAOLO is distinctive and unique in relation to banking and finance services. The trade mark is well-known, registered and used in multiple jurisdictions. The Complainant has not licensed or authorized its use in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known as “Intesa Sanpaolo” and has no other apparent connection with that name or mark.
Further, the Respondent has not made any legitimate, noncommerical use of the disputed domain name. The Panel accessed the page to which the disputed domain name resolves on June 8, 2012, at which time a general “Bing” search page appeared. When the Complainant accessed the page on April 12, 2012 it displayed the message “Domain for sale: $100,000.00” and “Legal Battle Warriors, Mr Wang”. Such use of the disputed domain name to link to a page offering it for sale for an exorbitant amount does not result in the Respondent acquiring any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Therefore the Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant’s trade mark INTESA SANPAOLO is distinctive and has no generic meaning. The mark is well-known, registered in many countries and used by one of Italy’s biggest banking groups. The Panel is persuaded that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trade mark at the time of registration and had no legitimate reason for incorporating it into the disputed domain name at registration. The disputed domain name was therefore registered in bad faith.
The print out of the webpage to which the disputed domain name resolved on April 12, 2012, and the email that the Complainant received in response to its cease and desist letter are indications of bad faith. The only inference open to the Panel is that the Respondent acquired the distinctive domain name for the purposes of selling it back to the Complainant for an inflated sum, without itself having any grounds to claim rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. 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 domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
WiIliam A. Van Caenegem
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 8, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy