{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-004089",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is Banca Intesa S.p.a., among the greatest Italian banks, holder of several registered trademarks including: Italian trademark registration n. 818814 granted on june 2000 “Banca Intesa” for products\/services in classes 9, 16; 36, 38, 41 and 42; Community trademark registration n. 779793 granted on November 15, 1999 “Banca Intesa” for products\/services 9, 16; 36, 38, 41 and 42.\r\nOn 9 april 2006 Respondent registered the disputed domain name.\r\nOn 20 december 2006 Complainant filed a complaint before the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC);\r\nAfter positive formal requirements compliance review, on 4 january 2007 CAC notified parties of commencement of ADR proceeding, allowing respondent to file a response within the 30 days deadline from the performed complaint delivery;\r\nOn 5 january 2007 respondent timely filed a response;\r\nOn 31 january 2007 the appointed panelist Mr. Roberto MANNO filed his statement of acceptance and declaration of impartiality and independence; \r\nProjected decision-date was set on 5 march 2007.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any legal proceeding concerning the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "It results from the attached documentary evidence filed by the complainant, a well known Italian bank and among the largest European banking groups, the use since 1998 of the brand “BANCA INTESA” on the ground of several Italian and community trademark registrations, including:\r\ni) Italian trademark registration n. 818814 granted on june 2000 “Banca Intesa” for products\/services in classes 9, 16; 36, 38, 41 and 42; \r\nii) Community trademark registration n. 779793 granted on November 15, 1999 “Banca Intesa” for products\/services 9, 16; 36, 38, 41 and 42.\r\n\r\nThe complainant alleges that registration and use of the disputed domain name are abusive and speculative under art. 21 of Public Policy Rules and par. B11 of ADR Rules, as:\r\ni) Domain name is confusingly similar with complainant’s trademark: the sole difference consisting in the use of the word “banco” in place of “banca” in the disputed domain name bancointesa.eu is irrelevant;\r\nii) Respondent registered the domain name without any right or legitime interest in the name: online searches and other kind of investigations as trademark watching services in order to detect any identical or similar trademark gave no results of possible respondent’s rights\/legitime interest in the use of  “Intesa” or “bancointesa” names;\r\niii) Domain name has been registered \/ used in bad faith: complainant alleges in particular that domain name have been intentionally used in order to attract Internet users, for commercial gain to the Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which rights are recognized to complainant. It is complainant’s submission that alleged use of disputed domain name for pornographic purposes is clear indication of registration and use in bad faith, as confirmed by a number of cases decided by WIPO Panelists under UDRP Rules;\r\niv) Respondent’s contact information (the name Dave Davies; the fax number +1.111111111111) should constitute another pattern of conduct revealing the intention to hide respondent’s identity, and therefore respondent’s bad faith in the registration of disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Panel wishes to stress the following remarks:\r\na) In abusive and speculative registration proceedings under art. 21 PPR  revocation of disputed domain name (hereinafter, DDN) may be the consequence of proved: identicality\/confusing similarity of DDN and registrant’s lack of right\/legitime interest in the name; or identicality\/confusing similarity of DDN and bad faith in DDN registrant or user;\r\nb) As far as URDP decisions may be helpful in ascertaining the single subjective elements of bad faith use or registration, or lack of right\/legitime interest, the Panel outlines that for a revocation order under .eu PPR complainant have to prove either one of abovementioned requirements.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that DDN is confusing similar to complainant’s rights on the wordmark “BANCA INTESA”. Moreover, the Panel is aware that registration of domain names presenting little difference with famous trademarks is a conduct commonly known as “typosquatting”, oriented to maliciously create a virtually identical and\/or confusingly similar name to the Complainant’s trademark.\r\nUnder Wikipedia definition of typosquatting “Typosquatting, also called URL hijacking, is a form of cybersquatting which relies on mistakes such as typographical errors made by Internet users when inputting a website address into a web browser. Should a user accidentally enter an incorrect website address, they may be led to an alternative address owned by a cybersquatter.\"\r\nForms of typosquatting may be, inter alia: insertion of common extension (as “club”; “online”) to the disputed name; similar sounding character combination; malicious missing characters.\r\nConsidering that the “intesa” word is the distinctive element of the well-known “banca intesa” word-mark, amplified by the massive number of corresponding domain names, it would be theorically possible for malicious typosquatters to gain from trademark’s celebrity through the registration of a nearly-identical domain name.\r\n\r\nBearing this in mind, pursuant art. 21 PPR it is necessary for the Panel to establish if one of the subjective conditions are met, either:\r\na) Lack of legitimate interest;\r\nb) Bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Panel believes that while complainant allegations on the first element (which is difficult to prove, dealing with negative facts) have been positively supported,  respondent’s assertion are deprived of any documentation. Nothing in Respondent’s arguments may serve as serious basis for a right or legitimate interest in the use of the name BANCOINTESA. Moreover, using his discretional investigating power under par.B(7)(a) ADR Rules, the Panel have found an announcement on the http:\/\/www.acorndomains.co.uk\/ (dated January 2007) site claiming that “200+ High Quality EU domains” were for sale, including bancointesa.eu.\r\nThe Panel believes that the reason of the “high quality” of DDN was essentially the fact that it was referring to complainant’s immaterial assets.\r\nSuch pattern of conduct may serve as a basis to refuse all respondent’s arguments oriented to prove a legitimate interest in DDN registration and, including the filed .jpg-file representing a videocap of www.bancointesa.eu, the fact that such DDN was applied on behalf of said “Alessandro Bancointesa”, a pretended law student at McGill University.\r\nIt is this Panel opinion that the circumstances arising from parties allegations and his discretional investigations clearly indicate that respondent failed to demonstrate a legitimate interest as provided under art. 21 (2)(a) PPR.\r\n\r\nUnlike in ADR case under UDRP rules, there is no need, at this point, to investigate on the presence of bad faith requirement in order take decisions pursuant to art.22(11)PPR.\r\nBeeing eligibility criteria set out in art. 4(2)(b) of Regulation 733\/02 satisfied, the Panel therefore order that the domain name shall be transferred to Complainant.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\n\r\nthe domain name BANCOINTESA be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2007-03-01 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant asked the transfer of the domain name “bancointesa.eu” on the basis that it is confusingly similar with complainant’s earlier trademark rights and that it was registered and used regardless any right or legitimate interest on that name and in bad faith.\r\nOn the basis of the documentation alleged by the parties, and findings of Panel’s discretional investigations, complainant’s submissions were accepted, also because of the lack of adequate supporting evidence in respondent’s allegations.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}