URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

BNP PARIBAS v. Data Protected
Claim Number: FA1907001851002

DOMAIN NAME

<bnp-paribas.cloud>

PARTIES

	Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS, France
	Complainant Representative: Nameshield Enora Millocheau of Angers, France

	Respondent: Data Protected Data Protected of Toronto, ON, CA

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Aruba PEC S.p.A.
	Registrars: Tucows Domains Inc.

EXAMINER

	The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
	Ms. Kateryna Oliinyk, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: July 4, 2019
	Commencement: July 8, 2019
	Default Date: July 23, 2019
	Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION

Findings of Fact: Findings of Fact: Under URS 9.1. the evidences will be the materials submitted with the Complaint and the Response, and those materials will serve as the entire records used by the Examiner to make a Determination. URS 8.2. reads that the burden of proof shall be clear and convincing evidences. Under URS 8.6. if the Examiner finds that all three standards provided for by URS 8.1. are satisfied by clear and convincing evidences and that there is no genuine contestable issue, then the Examiner shall issue a Determination in favour of the Complainant. Under URS 6.1. if at the expiration of the 14 Calendar Day Response period (or extended period if granted), the Registrant does not submit an answer, the Complaint proceeds to Default. Further URS 6.3. reads that all Default cases proceed to Examination for review on the merits of the claim. Complainant holds trademark BNP PARIBAS n° 728598, registered on February 2nd, 2000. This trademark is also registered in the TMCH since October 23th, 2013. Besides, the Complainant and its distinctive trademark BNP PARIBAS are known as one of the most famous banks in the world. The website in relation with the disputed domain name <bnp-paribas.cloud> redirects to a Google Safe Browsing warning page, and then to an inactive website. Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The registered domain name <bnp-paribas.cloud> fully incorporates the word mark BNP PARIBAS for which the Complainant holds valid registration and that are in current use, the status and confirmation of use in which are supported by relevant entry with TMCH. It is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus new gTLD .could does not preclude confusion of the conflicting domain with the Complainantï¿½s mark. Internet users may infer the gTLD .cloud as the one which demonstrates cloud solutions and/or services of the Complainant. Respectively, the Examiner finds that the contested domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainantï¿½s word marks under URS 1.2.6.1. (i).

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Examiner determines that the Respondent is not commonly known by the BNP PARIBAS name and that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use Complainantï¿½s marks in a domain name or otherwise. When accessing the website under the disputed domain name <bnp-paribas.cloud>, internet users are referred to Google Safe Browsing warning page, and then to an inactive website. Still, under the circumstances of such passive holding of the domain name, the case papers do not contain any information which might evidence on the legitimate fair use of the domain name by the Respondent. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2.

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant's web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant holds the well-known trademark. The Respondent has held the domain name <bnp-paribas.cloud> passively thereby preventing the Complainant from reflecting its trade mark BNP PARIBAS in a corresponding domain name. The Respondent took steps to conceal its true identity and has failed to put the domain name to any legitimate non commercial or fair use. In the absence of submissions from the Respondent the Examiner determines that there is no counter evidence of any legitimate non commercial or fair use and that accordingly the registration of the domain name <bnp-paribas.cloud> was in bad faith.

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the parties submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

bnp-paribas.cloud

Ms. Kateryna Oliinyk
Examiner
Dated: July 26, 2019

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page