Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v. alex taytelbaum et al.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS FINAL DETERMINATION

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v. alex taytelbaum et al.
Claim Number: FA1402001544873

DOMAIN NAME

<bbva.ventures>

PARTIES

	Complainant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. Gestion Dominios of Madrid, --, Spain

	Respondent: Owner Alexander R Taytelbaum of Purmerend, --, Netherlands

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: VENTURES Registry
	Registrars: Hosting Concepts B.V.

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.
	Flip Jan Claude Petillion, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: February 21, 2014
	Commencement: March 12, 2014
	Response Date: March 24, 2014
	Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration 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: Complainant is a global financial group which develops its business providing financial services in several countries, such us Spain and Mexico and operating under its BBVA trademark. Complainant holds trademark registrations in several jurisdictions and has registered rights in the European community trademark BBVA. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 7, 2014. The disputed domain name redirects to a website offering domain names for sale. Respondent admits that it the disputed domain name was registered with the intention to sell the domain name to a third party named BBVA Ventures.

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

Complainant shows to be the holder of valid national and regional registrations the BBVA trademark and that the trademark is in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name <bbva.venture> is identical to the Complainant’s BBVA Trademark and that the condition under URS 1.2.6.1 has been met.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered trademark BBVA. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he is commonly known as BBVA or under the disputed domain name. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in BBVA and the disputed domain names, or evidence about a fair use either. Therefore, Examiner finds that URS 1.2.6.2 is also complied.

[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

Respondent admits to have registered the disputed domain name with the intention of selling it to a company, allegedly named BBVA Ventures and incorporated in the Netherlands. Examiner is not convinced that Respondent had a company in mind other than Complainant (or Complainant’s affiliated BBVA Ventures company in Sillicon Valley). The domain name that is allegedly referring to the Dutch company does not resolve. Respondent admission of his intent of selling the disputed domain name to a BBVA Ventures company without having any rights in the disputed domain name constitutes clear and convincing evidence of Respondent’s bad faith intent.

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:

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:

bbva.ventures

Flip Jan Claude Petillion
Examiner
Dated: March 27, 2014

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page