WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Ekkert Ida Case No. D2018-2207 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. of Torino, Italy, represented by Perani Pozzi Associati - Studio Legale, Italy.

The Respondent is Ekkert Ida of Moscow, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 28, 2018. On September 28, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On October 22, 2018, 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 October 23, 2018 the Center sent an email communication in English and Russian in regard to the language of the proceedings. On October 24, 2018, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceedings. The Respondent did not comment on the language issue.

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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 30, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 19, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 20, 2018.

The Center appointed Mariya Koval as the sole panelist in this matter on November 26, 2018. 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 one of the leading banking groups, which was formed by the merger of Banca Intesa and Sanpaolo IMI in 2007. The Complainant is among the top banking groups in Europe and has a strategic international presence, with more than 1,000 branches and 7.6 million customers and an international network of specialists in support of corporate customers across 26 countries. Today the Complainant is one of the leaders in Italy in all business areas (retail, corporate, and wealth management) which offers its services to 11.9 million customers through a network of approximately 4,800 branches distributed throughout the country with market shares no lower than 16% in most Italian regions.

The Complainant owns numerous registrations for the INTESA SANPAOLO trademark (the “INTESA SANPAOLO Trademark”) around the world, including, but not limited to:

- International registration No. 920896, registered on March 7, 2007 in respect of goods in classes 9, 16 and services in classes 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42,

- European Union Trademark No. 005301999, registered on June 18, 2007, in respect of services in classes 35, 36 and 38,

- European Union Trademark No. 005421177, registered on November 5, 2007, in respect of goods in classes 9, 16 and services in classes 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.

The Complainant, having a significant online presence, operates a large number of domain names with incorporation of the INTESA SANPAOLO Trademark, namely:

- - registered on August 24, 2006
- - registered on September 8, 2006
- - registered on August 26, 2006
- - registered on September 8, 2006
- - registered on September 1, 2006
- - registered on September 8, 2006
- - registered on August 26, 2006
- - registered on November 13, 2006
- - registered on September 2, 2018
- - registered on November 13, 2006
- - registered on November 13, 2006
- - registered on November 13, 2006

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 29, 2018. At the date of this decision, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a page which warns users that there is a “Deceptive site ahead” and that “attackers on may trick you into doing something dangerous like installing software or revealing your personal information (for example, passwords, phone numbers, or credit cards”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is almost identical to its INTESA SANPAOLO Trademarks. The Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name reproduces its Trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the numbers “356123” and that such difference is clearly a minor variation of the Complainant’s INTESA SANPAOLO Trademark.

The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent has no rights in the Disputed Domain Name since the Respondent has not been authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s Trademark and the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant further asserts that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith in view of the fact that the INTESA SANPAOLO Trademark is distinctive and well-known around the world. The Complainant also asserts that the fact the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark, indicates that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s Trademark at the time of its registration.

Also the Complainant’s supports its assertions regarding registration of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith by the fact that the Disputed Domain Name is not used for any bona fide offerings, even more it has been used (at the time of sending a cease and desist letter to the Respondent by the Complainant’s representative) for redirecting Internet users to a webpage that reproduced the graphic and layout of the Complainant’s competitor ING Direct’s home banking webpage, that, in its turn, is a “phishing”.

The Complainant asserts that by 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.

Fina