URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
BNP PARIBAS v. Data Protected
Claim Number: FA1901001826228
DOMAIN NAME
<bnpparibas.space>
PARTIES
Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS 09, France | |
Complainant Representative: Nameshield
Laurent Becker of Angers, France
|
Respondent: Data Protected Data Protected of Kirkland, WA, US | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotSpace Inc. | |
Registrars: eNom, 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. | |
David J. Steele, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: January 22, 2019 | |
Commencement: January 22, 2019 | |
Default Date: February 6, 2019 | |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant The domain name is identical to Complainant's mark, except for removing the space between the two portions of the mark, and the addition of the TLD string. The addition or removal of a punctuation in the subject domain name does not impact the analysis of confusing similarity. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent is currently not using the subject domain name for a legitimate purpose. Instead it is used to host a generic registrar parking page. Importantly, there is no conceivable use of the subject domain name by Respondent that would be legitimate.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The subject domain name is obviously connected with Complainant given that it is identical to Complainant's mark. The registration of a domain name that is identical to a well-known mark by someone with no connection to the trademark owner supports a finding of bad faith. 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:
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:
|
David J. Steele Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page