BNP PARIBAS v. Tommy FILLON / frillon lyon sap
Claim Number: FA2101001929193
Complainant: BNP PARIBAS, 16 Boulevard des Italiens, 75008 Paris, France.
Complainant Representative: Nameshield, 79 Rue Desjardins, 49100 Angers, France.
Respondent: Tommy FILLON / frillon lyon sap, II 69003 Lyon, France.
Respondent Representative:
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Dog Beach, LLC
Registrars: OVH, SAS
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.
Bart Van Besien, as Examiner.
Complaint submitted: January 22, 2021
Commencement: January 25, 2021
Default Date: February 12, 2021
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").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The Complainant is one of the world’s largest banking groups. The Complainant has shown that it is the owner of at least one international word trademark “BNP Paribas” with registration number 728598 registered on February 23th, 2000. This trademark has also been registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse since October 23th, 2013. The Complainant has shown that it has made effective use of this trademark. The Respondent has not submitted a response and is therefore presumed to not refute this.
As proof of use, the Complainant has submitted a signed document that proves its registration with the Trademark Clearinghouse, a screenshot of a news website named www.docnews.fr that mentions the Complainant and its registered trademark, and a screenshot of its website www.bnpparibas.com.
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 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; 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 the Complainant
The Respondent did not file a response.
URS 1.2.6.1 (i) covers the domain name at issue in this case. The disputed domain name <bnp-paribas.consulting> is identical to the Complainant’s international trademark “BNP Paribas” with registration number 728598, with the addition of a dash (“-“) between ‘BNP’ and ‘Paribas’ and the suffix ‘.consulting’.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not related to the Complainant’s business, that the Respondent is not commonly known as “BNP-PARIBAS”, and that the Respondent has not shown any preparations to use the domain name in connection to the bona fide offering of goods or services. Indeed, the Complainant has shown that, at least at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent could not have used the domain name without infringing the Complainant’s intellectual property rights on the trademark BNP PARIBAS.
The Examiner notes that the Respondent did not file a response and therefore did not provide evidence of legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, there is no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is also no evidence of any similar or identical trademarks owned by the Respondent. There is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. There is no indication that the Respondent is otherwise related to the Complainant’s business. There is no evidence of the Respondent being commonly known as “BNP-PARIBAS” prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Examiner decides that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant.
The Complainant asserts that it is a well-known banking group, in particular in France, which is the Respondent’s country, and that the Respondent therefore must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the moment of registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant further asserts that, by registering the disputed domain name, which was inactive at the time of filing the complaint, the Respondent is attempting to take predatory advantage of the Complainant’s pre-existing trademark rights and to prevent the Complainant to register the disputed domain name.
The Respondent did not file a response.
The Examiner finds that, since the Respondent did not file a response, it is more likely than not that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Indeed, it is likely that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website, which is evidence of bad faith use and registration, in accordance with the paragraph 1.2.6.3.d of the URS Procedure.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
<bnp-paribas.consulting>
Bart Van Besien, Examiner
Dated: February 10, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page