URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

BNP PARIBAS v. Non-Public Data
Claim Number: FA1806001789885

DOMAIN NAME

<bnp-paribas.company>

PARTIES

	Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of Paris, France
	Complainant Representative: Nameshield Daria Baskova of Angers, France

	Respondent: eric francoise of Rennes, II, FR

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
	Registrars: Key-Systems, LLC

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.
	Natalia Stetsenko, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: June 4, 2018
	Commencement: June 5, 2018
	Default Date: June 20, 2018
	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: The Complainant has established rights in the " BNP Paribas " trademark based on its International registration No. 728598, registered on February 2, 2000. The ownership and examples of use have been confirmed by entries in the Trademark Clearinghouse, where the mark has been registered since October 23, 2013.

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 disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark because it incorporates its " BNP PARIBAS" registered mark in its entirety, simply adding a hyphen and the gTLD “.company”. Adding a hyphen and a generic word, such as “company”, which refers to corporate nature of the registrant and user of the domain name, does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion, hence is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant's " BNP PARIBAS" trademark.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The disputed domain name has not been available since its registration. The Registrant is in no way related to the Complainant’s business. Furthermore, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain. Previous panels found that a respondent was not commonly known by a domain name where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain name. Given that the Respondent has defaulted, there is no evidence on the record showing the preparation to use the domain name for the bona fide offering of goods and services. Therefore, the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

[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 is a famous bank operating in many countries worldwide. Its trade name and trademark BNP PARIBAS are well known to consumers, so the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s famous business and trademark “BNP PARIBAS” at the moment of registration of the disputed domain name. Previous panels have found both bad faith registration and use in case where the disputed domain name incorporated a famous mark. Passive holding is yet another evidence of bad faith registration and use aimed at preventing the rights holder from registering the domain in its name.

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:

bnp-paribas.company

Natalia Stetsenko
Examiner
Dated: June 25, 2018