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.

Complainant prevailed on element (i) in that the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that it is in current use. The record makes clear that “the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that [it] is in current use,” and the registration is identical to the second-level portion of the disputed domain name, as required by paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the URS.

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

Registrant has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, which is composed of the BNP Paribas Fortis trademark. Respondent did not submit evidence of rights or 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.

Under the URS Procedure, essentially the same considerations that make it clear that Registrant has no rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain names are also pertinent to an analysis of whether the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. See URS Procedure ¶ 1.2.6.3 a.-d. and ¶ 5.7. A finding of bad faith in the registration and use of the domain names therefore follows directly from the above discussion of the absence of any rights or legitimate interests accruing to Registrant from the facts presented in the Complaint in this proceeding. Complainant asserts that Respondent is working at a Tennis School in Belgium whereas Complainant is the No.1 tennis sponsor around the world today, and thus it is clear that Respondent is aware of BNP Paribas and has knowledge of Complainant’s marks. The Examiner infers from the fame of the Complainant and its marks and from the profession of Respondent that Respondent was aware of BNP Paribas and had knowledge of Complainant’s marks at the time of its registration of the disputed domain name. In the absence of Response to Complainant’s contentions, Examiner finds Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

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.xyz

	Complainant Submitted: September 24, 2015
	Commencement: September 24, 2015
	Default Date: October 9, 2015
	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: BNP Paribas Fortis NV of Brussel, Belgium
	Complainant Representative: Marqu Brands and Trademarks Fernanda Quarles van Ufford of the Hague, Netherlands

	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.
	Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner

	Respondent: ind ivan silva of wezembeek oppem, II, BE

	Registries: XYZ.COM LLC
	Registrars: Key-Systems LLC