BNP PARIBAS v. 注册局联系人
Claim Number: FA1612001705321
Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of Paris, France.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: 注册局联系人 of 北京, 北京, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Beijing Tele-info Network Technology Co., Ltd.
Registrars: Reserved for non-billable transactions where Registry Operator acts as Registrar
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.
Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: December 1, 2016
Commencement: December 5, 2016
Default Date: December 20, 2016
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.
Procedural Findings:
This complaint and findings relate to the single domain <bnpparibas.信息> (<bnpparibas.xn--vuq861b>). No multiple Complainants or Respondents are involved in this proceeding. No domain names are dismissed from this complaint.
Findings of Fact:
The International trademark "BNP Paribas" under n° 728598 as of February 2nd 2000 is the registered trademark of Complainant. This trademark is also registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse (“TMCH”) since October 23th, 2013. Evidence of use for the trademark has been presented to and validated by the TMCH.
Complainant contends that Respondent’s domain name <bnpparibas.信息> is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, and was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent who registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not related to the Complainant’s business. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the domain name only in order to prevent the Complainant to register it and to reflect its trademark in a domain name.
According to the Whois of the disputed domain name, the Respondent is "注册局联系人". Respondent did not provide a response to the complaint in accordance with the URS rules of procedure.
The website in relation with the disputed domain name <bnpparibas.信息> is in registrar parking page since its registration.
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 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.
Identical or confusingly similar (URS 1.2.6.1.)
The Examiner finds that the domain name <bnpparibas.信息> fully incorporates the Complainant’s BNP Paribas mark. In addition, it is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus the new gTLD “.信息” (equivalent of “.INFO” in Chinese) is of no consequence here.
The Examiner must add from its own knowledge that the trademark BNP Paribas is a famous and well-known trademark in the world and the distinctiveness of this mark has been significantly increased through the long and intensive use of the sign by the Complainant.
The Examiner finds that the domain name <bnpparibas.信息> is identical to the Complainant’s BNP Paribas mark under URS 1.2.6.1. (i).
No rights or legitimate interests
The Examiner determines that the Respondent is not commonly known by the BNP Paribas name as the WHOIS record for the <bnpparibas.信息> domain name lists “注册局联系人” as the domain name registrant.
It is contemplated from the Complaint that Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use Complainant’s BNP Paribas mark in a domain name or otherwise.
The website in relation with the disputed domain name <bnpparibas.信息> is in registrar parking page since its registration. The use of a domain name in such a way does not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a "bona fide offering of goods or services" or from "legitimate noncommercial or fair use" of the domain name. No demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services were presented by the Respondent to the Examiner.
Factoring that the Respondent defaulted to assert defenses to the Complaint to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interest in the domain name, the Examiner finds that the Respondent has not established any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name < bnpparibas.信息> under URS 1.2.6.2.
Bad faith registration and use
Although the website at the disputed domain name currently is used merely as a parking page, the Examiner is satisfied that the domain name <bnpparibas.信息> was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Given the prominence and unusual spelling of Complainant’s BNP Paribas mark, it is found that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith, with knowledge (actual or imputed) that including the BNP Paribas mark as part of the domain name would be likely to cause an Internet user visiting Respondent’s web site (or through other means) to incorrectly assume that the domain name is somehow sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant.
Respondent’s failure to answer any of the Complainant’s allegations or provide any form of explanation supports the conclusion that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Based on the above cumulative circumstances the Examiner finds such behavior to evidence Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under URS 1.2.6.3.
The Examiner finds that the complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.
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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<bnpparibas.信息>
Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson, Examiner
Dated: December 20, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page