URS FINAL DETERMINATION


BNP PARIBAS v. Daniel Macias Barajas / International Camps Network et al.
Claim Number: FA2009001910842


DOMAIN NAME

<bnp-paribas.club>


PARTIES


   Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS 09, France
  
Complainant Representative: Nameshield Enora Millocheau of Angers, France

   Respondent: InterCampsNet Daniel Macias of Calgary, Canada
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
   Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC

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.
   Darryl C. Wilson, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: September 1, 2020
   Commencement: September 3, 2020
   Default Date: September 18, 2020
   Response Date: September 21, 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: N/A - There is only one Complainant and one mark involved.
      Multiple Respondents: N/A - There is only one Respondent and one domain name involved.

   Findings of Fact: The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the International trademark "BNP PARIBAS" n° 728598, registered on February 23th, 2000. This trademark is also registered in the TMCH since October 23th, 2013. The domain name was created on or about August 30, 2020. The addition of the dash “­â€œ and the new gTLD ".CLUB" is not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the Complainant's trademark “BNP PARIBAS”. The addition of generic wording and a gTLD to a trademark in a domain name is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The Respondent has indicated no rights or interests in respect of the domain name and is not related to the Complainant’s business.

  

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, 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 is 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; The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the International trademark "BNP PARIBAS" n° 728598, registered on February 23th, 2000. This trademark is also registered in the TMCH since October 23th, 2013.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no relation nor commercial activities with him. The Respondent does not directly address that contention nor the specific URS element. Respondent evinces a misunderstanding of the underlying concerns of these proceedings by focusing the response on the fact of the purchase of the domain name. Respondent asserts that the ability to purchase the domain name from a registrar on the open market means "...I DO have the right to the domain." The mere ability to purchase a domain name does not equate to a legitimate right or interest to that domain name.


[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 domain name(s) was registered and is being used in bad faith. Per sub (d.) Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on­line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location. The website in relation to the disputed domain name <BNP-PARIBAS.CLUB> is on a parking page with commercial links (“PPC”) since its registration. The Respondent has not provided any evidence to indicate a demonstrable preparation to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The response provided evinces a misunderstanding of the nature of the proceedings and associated principles. The response regarding this particular URS element states in relevant part "... how are they to label out and categorize my FAITH???...." Such a response does not sufficiently address this particular element of the URS.


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.

Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. 

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

Complainant provided the requisite evidence that Respondent used Complainant's registered trademark in selecting its domain name. Respondent's assertions regarding the selection of the domain name are highly dubious at best and coupled with Respondent's lack of use fully support the conclusion that this proceeding was neither abusive nor contained any material falsehoods by the Complainant.


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:

  1. bnp-paribas.club

 


Darryl C. Wilson
Examiner
Dated: September 24, 2020

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page