Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v. mohammed akik miah

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v. mohammed akik miah
Claim Number: FA1402001544886

<bbvabancomerusa.equipment>
<bbvabancomerusa.holdings>
<bbvabancomerusa.technology>
<bbvabancomerusa.today>
<bbvabancomerusa.ventures>

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 first element of the disputed domain name “bbvabancomer” is identical to the Complainant’s Trademarks BBVA BANCOMER and the addition of USA is not distinctive enough. Moreover, Complainant has registered a domain name <bbvabancomerusa.com> in 2005, which is currently in use to promote its goods and services. Examiner finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark registrations and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.1 by demonstrating that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national registration which is in current use.

[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 BANCOMER. Respondent has not filed a response to this complaint and consequently no evidence was submitted to prove that he is commonly known as BBVABANCOMER. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in BBVABANCOMER and the disputed domain names, or evidence about a fair use either. 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

The site regarding the disputed domain names includes “pay per click” links which refer to financial services. Since they are the same serviced provided by Complainant there is likelihood of leading the consumers into confusion. Examiner finds that Respondent is trying to take advantage of Complainant’s fame. Taking into account that Complainant’s trademarks are prior to the disputed domain names’ registration and that Complainant’s domain name <bbvabancomerusa.com> was registered in August 5, 2005 Examiner concludes that the registration of the disputed domain names was made on bad faith. Respondent knew the trademark BBVA BANCOMER when he applied for the disputed domain names. Examiner finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith to attract for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3.

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:

bbvabancomerusa.equipment
bbvabancomerusa.holdings
bbvabancomerusa.technology
bbvabancomerusa.today
bbvabancomerusa.ventures

	Complainant Submitted: February 21, 2014
	Commencement: February 24, 2014
	Default Date: March 11, 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").

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

	Respondent: hostmaster oneandone / 1&1 Internet Ltd. of Slough, USA

	Registries: Corn Station, LLC,John Madison, LLC,TECHNOLOGY Registry,TODAY Registry,Binky Lake, LLC
	Registrars: 1&1 Internet AG

	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.
	Hector Ariel Manoff, as Examiner