The Petitioner is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. ofItaly, represented by Perani Pozzi Associati – Studio Legale, Italy. 2. Domain Holder
The Domain Holder is Z.X., of China. 3. Domain Name and Procedural History
This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the disputed domain name This Petition was filed under the Terms and Conditions of registration (the “.se Policy”) and the Instructions governing Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding for domain names in the top-level domain .se (the “.se Rules”). The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“the Center”) verified that the Petition satisfied the formal requirements of the .se Policy and the .se Rules. In accordance with Section 13 of the .se Rules, the Center formally notified the Domain Holder of the Petition on June 22, 2020. The Domain Holder did not submit any response and, accordingly, the Center notified the Domain Holder’s default on July 23, 2020. The Center appointed Johan Sjöbeck as the sole Arbitrator in this matter on July 27, 2020. The Arbitrator has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with Section 1 of the .se Rules. 4. Factual Background The Petitioner is the owner of a number of trademark registrations for INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA that are legally valid in Sweden, including the following: European Union trademark (EUTM) No. 005301999 INTESA SANPAOLO (word), registered June 18, 2007, for goods and services in classes 35, 36 and 38. European Union trademark (EUTM) No. 005421227 INTESA SANPAOLO (device), registered September 25, 2007, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42. European Union trademark (EUTM) No. 012247979 INTESA (word), registered March 5, 2014, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42. The disputed domain name The Petitioner claims that the disputed domain name shall be transferred to the Petitioner. Furthermore, the Petitioner also requests to have the dispute decided as an Accelerated Proceeding if the Domain Holder does not respond to the Petition. 6. Parties’ Contentions A. Petitioner The Petitioner is claiming to be among the top banking groups in the European Union, with a market capitalization exceeding 27.2 billion EUR. With a network of approximately 3,700 branches throughout Italy, the Petitioner offers its services to approximately 11.8 million customers. The Petitioner has a strong presence in Central-Eastern Europe with a network of approximately 1,000 branches and over 7.2 million customers. Furthermore, the international network specialized in supporting corporate customers is present in 25 countries. The disputed domain name The Domain Holder has no rights to the disputed domain name. The Petitioner has not authorized the Domain Holder to use the trademarks INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA. The disputed domain name is offered for sale via Sedo.com. The Domain Holder has registered and used the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Petitioner or to a competitor of the Petitioner, for valuable consideration in excess of the Domain Holder’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. B. Domain Holder The Domain Holder did not file a Response to the Petition. 7. Discussion and Findings A domain name may, in accordance with the .se Policy Paragraph 7.2, be deregistered or transferred to the party requesting dispute resolution proceedings if all of the following three conditions are fulfilled: 1. The disputed domain name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the party requesting dispute resolution can prove its rights, and 2. The disputed domain name has been registered or used in bad faith, and 3. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the disputed domain name. All three conditions must be met in order for a petitioner to succeed in its action. A. The disputed domain name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights. The Arbitrator finds that the disputed domain name Shortly after registering the disputed domain name, the Domain Holder offered it for sale. There is no evidence in the case file that refutes the Petitioner’s submissions. Therefore, the Arbitrator concludes that the Petitioner has also proven the second requirement under Paragraph 7.2 of the .se Policy and that the disputed domain name Despite given the opportunity, the Domain Holder has not submitted any evidence in this case to demonstrate that the Domain Holder is the owner of a trademark, or any other right, similar to the disputed domain name or that the Domain Holder is commonly known by the disputed domain name. By not submitting a Response, the Domain Holder has failed to invoke any circumstances, which could demonstrate pursuant to Paragraph 7.2 of the .se Policy, any rights or justified interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Consequently, there is no evidence in the case that refutes the Petitioner’s submissions, and the Arbitrator concludes that the Petitioner has also proven the third requirement under Paragraph 7.2 of the .se Policy. 8. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph 7.2 of the .se Policy, the Arbitrator orders that the disputed domain name Johan Sjöbeck
Date: August 4, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy