REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH 4(A) OF THE POLICY
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain the transfer or the revocation of the domain name:
(1) the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(3) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
1. THE COMPLAINANT’S RIGHTS AND CONFUSING SIMILARITY OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME TO THE COMPLAINANT'S MARK
The Complainant has provided sufficient documentary evidences to demonstrate to be owner of the INTESA SANPAOLO Trademark since 2006.
In assessing identity or confusing similarity the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, because it incorporates the entirety of the Complainant's INTESA SANPAOLO Trademark and differs from such mark by merely adding the generic and descriptive term "ONLINE" and the top-level domain name ".COM".
In UDRP cases where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, Panels agree that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (see paragraph 1.7 WIPO Overview 3.0).
UDRP panels also agree that the top-level domain is usually to be ignored for the purpose of determination of identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark as it is a technical requirement of registration (see paragraph 1.11.1 WIPO Overview 3.0).
Hence, this Panel finds that the Complainant has proven the first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.
2. THE RESPONDENT’S LACK OF RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS TO THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
It is a consensus view of UDRP panels that the Complainant shall establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent (see paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0: "where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element").
The Respondent has never received any approval of the Complainant, expressed or implied, to use the Complainant's trademark or to register and use the disputed domain name, nor is affiliated to the Complainant in any form.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 12, 2019 by Abayomi Ajileye, located in Nigeria. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Moreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page containing PPC links to third parties' sites which relate to products or services competing with the Complainant's products or services. Such uses of the domain name are clearly not a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s mark.
While the Complainant has established its prima facie case, the Respondent has not submitted a Response to the Complaint and, thus, has failed to invoke any of the circumstances, which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the second requirement of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.
3. BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name which is to be considered confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, since it wholly incorporates the INTESA SANPAOLO Trademark. The addition of the generic and descriptive term “ONLINE” and the TLD “.COM” (technical requirement of the registration) are not sufficient elements to escape the finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark.
Considering that the Complainant provides banking and financial services online as well, the Respondent's choice to add the generic and descriptive term "ONLINE" to the trademark of the Complainant shows his clear intention to enhance such likeliness of confusion for the Internet users who are seeking or expecting the Complainant.
Given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant's prior mark (the Complainant has demonstrated that the INTESA SANPAOLO Trademark is frequently subject of cybersquatting), it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name for a mere chance without actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights in such well-known mark and the intention to exploit such reputation by diverting traffic away from the Complainant’s website.
Even assuming that the Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant’s prior mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name (which is quite unlikely), it omitted to verify that the disputed domain name would have infringed the Complainant's earlier rights or, even worse, it verified it and deliberately proceeded with the infringing registration and use.
The Complainant has submitted the results of a search carried out on Google search engine regarding the term “INTESA SANPAOLO”, all of them related to the Complainant. Should the Respondent have performed a similar search on the Internet before registering the disputed domain name, he would have easily learnt about the Complainant’s activities and trademark registered and used worldwide.
This Panel highlights that, according to paragraph 2 of the Policy, it is the Respondent’s responsibility to determine whether the domain name registration infringes or violates third party's rights (“By applying to register a domain name, or by asking us to maintain or renew a domain name registration, you hereby represent and warrant to us that (a) the statements that you made in your Registration Agreement are complete and accurate; (b) to your knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party; (c) you are not registering the domain name for an unlawful purpose; and (d) you will not knowingly use the domain name in violation of any applicable laws or regulations. It is your responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else's rights”). By registering the disputed domain name confusingly similar with the Complainant’s well-known mark, the Respondent has violated, inter alia, the cited provision of the Policy.
The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. While the sale of traffic (i.e. connecting domain names to parking pages and earning click-per-view revenue) does not in and of itself constitute bad faith, in the present case, considering that the website associated to the disputed domain name contains PPC links related to products and services competing with the products and services of the Complainant, the Panel finds that, by registering and using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website or a product or service on his website (Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
The Respondent has submitted a Response in this administrative proceeding providing any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use.
Taken into account all circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has discharged the burden of proof to show that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
|