URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
BNP PARIBAS v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245293105
Claim Number: FA2008001910586
DOMAIN NAME
<bnp-paribas.finance>
PARTIES
Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS, France | |
Complainant Representative: Nameshield
Enora Millocheau of Angers, France
|
Respondent: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245293105 of Toronto, ON, CA | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC | |
Registrars: Google 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. | |
Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: August 31, 2020 | |
Commencement: August 31, 2020 | |
Default Date: September 15, 2020 | |
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
Procedural Findings: | ||
Multiple Complainants: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants. | ||
Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents |
Findings of Fact: The Complainant claimed that the disputed domain name is identical to the international trademark BNP PARIBAS no 728598, registered on February 23, 2000. The Complainant asserted that the addition of the new gTLD suffix .finance is not sufficient to escape the finding that the one domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant also mentioned that the term .finance is a generic word compared with the distinctive expressions BNP PARIBAS and therefore does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant claimed that the respondent has no legitimate right or interest on the domain name and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent provided no response to the complaint. |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is identical to the word marks BNP PARIBAS for which the Complainant holds valid international registrations and that are in current use. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent for use of the BNP PARIBAS and trademark. The Respondent did not submit any response or evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the BNP PARIBAS trademark. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Given the well-known status of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent was clearly well aware of the Complainant and of its rights on the trademark when it registered the domain name. In this respect, according to the precedents, which were submitted by the Complainant, the Examiner concludes that, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain by registering the domain name. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name 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:
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:
|
Ahmet Akguloglu Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page