URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

BNP PARIBAS v. Gruppo Cipa Srl Societa/Ditta
Claim Number: FA1703001721890

DOMAIN NAME

<bnpparibasfortis.cloud>

PARTIES

	Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS, France
	Complainant Representative: Nameshield Anne Morin of Angers, France

	Respondent: Gruppo Cipa Srl Societa/Ditta Gruppo Cipa Srl Societa/Ditta Gruppo Cipa Srl Societa/Ditta of ROMA, RM, II, IT

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: ARUBA S.p.A.
	Registrars: Tucows Domains Inc.

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.
	Richard W. Hill, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: March 16, 2017
	Commencement: March 20, 2017
	Default Date: April 4, 2017
	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

Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]

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 domain name is confusingly similar to the International trademark "BNP PARIBAS" , registered on February 2nd 2000. The domain name is also identical to the BNP PARIBAS’s Belgian subsidiary: BNP PARIBAS FORTIS.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

According to the Whois of the disputed domain name, the Respondent is "Gruppo Cipa Srl Societa/Ditta". The Examiner finds that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name because the Whois information is not similar to the domain name. Furthermore, the website in relation with the disputed domain name is not used.

[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 Complainant and its distinctive trademark “BNP PARIBAS” is known as one of the most famous banks in the world. As noted above, the web site at the disputed domain name is not being used. It is difficult to envisage any usage of the disputed domain name that would not be in bad faith. As prior panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Examiner finds that, under the specific circumstances of this case, the finding of bad faith registration and use is justified.

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:

bnpparibasfortis.cloud

Richard W. Hill
Examiner
Dated: April 4, 2017

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page