Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº D2015-0265 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, April 16, 2015 (case Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Guiyan Wang)
| Resolution Date | April 16, 2015 |
| Issuing Organization | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center |
| Decision | Transfer |
| Dominio | Generic Domains |
The Complainant is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. of Torino, Italy, represented by Perani Pozzi Associati – Studio Legale, Italy.
The Respondent is Guiyan Wang of Beijing, China.
The disputed domain name [intesa.mobi] (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd. dba dns.com.cn (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 19, 2015. On February 19, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On February 27, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On February 27, 2015, the Center sent an email communication to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On March 2, 2015, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
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 in both Chinese and English, and the proceeding commenced on March 5, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 25, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 26, 2015.
The Center appointed Peter J. Dernbach as the sole panelist in this matter on April 2, 2015. 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 Complainant is an Italian corporation which provides banking and financial services in Europe and throughout the world. The Complainant is the owner of the INTESA trademark, including:
(1) INTESA, International trademark, Registration No. 793367 in Class 36, registered in 2002.
(2) INTESA, Community trademark, Registration No. 2803773 in Class 36, registered in 2003.
According to the information provided by the Registrar, the Respondent is Guiyan Wang. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 23, 2013.
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant is the owner of many INTESA trademarks around the world. The distinctive element of the Disputed Domain Name is the word “intesa”, which is identical to the Complainant’s INTESA trademark. In addition to the Complainant’s INTESA trademark, the Disputed Domain Name contains only one other element, “.mobi”, which is a generic Top-Level Domain Name (gTLD) and cannot distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant’s INTESA trademark. Therefore, the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the INTESA trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.
There...
To continue reading
Request your trial