BNP PARIBAS et al. v. DORIANA PARAGO
Claim Number: FA1803001777759
Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS 09, France.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: DORIANA PARAGO of Monopoli, International, IT.
Respondent Representative: «cDoriana» «cNo Known Middle» «cParago»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Aruba PEC S.p.A.
Registrars: Tucows Domains Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits here as Examiner.
Complaint submitted: March 20, 2018
Commencement: March 20, 2018
Default Date: April 4, 2018
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum 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.
Although Respondent 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.
IDENTICAL TO OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1 of the URS Procedure.
Complainant is an internationally known banking and financial services provider and the mark, BNP Paribas, and its family of marks, claim protection under its name for numerous general financial goods and services:
Complainant proved its rights to the valid French trademark registrations
No. 728598 and/or FR (France) 03.09.1999, 99 810 625; Publication Designations, number and date 2000/5 GAC 13.04.2000, pursuant to the Paris Convention. The mark is registered internationally pursuant to the Madrid Agreement, but for two refusals, one from CN (China) and one from VN (Viet Nam), and a Partial refusal from Turkey. China and Turkey ultimately issued: “Statement Indicating that the mark is protected for all the goods and services requested.” See ”International Registration Details” in the submission. In addition, among information in the submission for registration, a “nonexclusive” New Licence was shown to have been published with the designation 2004/44 Gaz, 03.02.2005 and effective 13.10.2004 for a duration of 15 years.)
Services set forth in the trademark materials in the submission include:
35. Business management, assistance, business organization, and management consulting, business management consulting, professional business consulting, efficiency experts, business information, business investigations, research for business purposes, business inquiries, business appraisals, commercial or industrial management assistance, accounting, tax declaration preparation, business administration consulting, market study, compilation of data in databases, computer file management, market research, economic forecasting, statistical information.
36. Banking operations, financial operations, monetary operations, credit bureaux, financial analyses, capital investment, execution of exchanges of money, cheque verification, issuing of travelers’ cheques, safe deposit services, financial clearing operations (exchange), financial consulting, credit, lease purchasing deposit of valuation, issue of tokens of value, savings, financial appraisals (banks) fiscal valuations, financing services, financing information, mutual funds, capital investments, electronic transfer of funds, financial management, pledge loans, financial transactions, monetary transactions, loaning (finance), financial affairs, stocks and bonds brokerage [and]
38. Telecommunictions, communications via fiber optic networks, communications via computer terminals, telephone communications, electronic messaging, computer-aided data transmission, electronic mail, computer transmission of information. tokens of value [and] …
Complainant’s first use in commerce is not clearly identified. However, Complainant’s mark represents one of the largest and best-known banking institutions in the world, according to Complainant, and it is especially active and well-known in Italy, Respondent’s home country.
The mark is in current use and proof was provided in the submission.
Respondent does not challenge Complainant’s trademark rights.
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is ßBNP Paribas>; any added top-level domain, i.e. “cloud,” being a required element of every domain name is irrelevant when determining an identical or confusingly similar contested domain.
Top-level domains and additions are irrelevant for assessing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark, and they do not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s protected BNP Paribas mark; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.2 of the URS Procedure.
Complainant urges that it has not authorized Respondent to register a domain name containing its protected trademark and Complainant correctly urges that Respondent is not commonly known by the mark or the disputed domain name.
Complainant further asserts that Respondent acquired no legitimate interests in Complainant’s protected mark by purchasing this domain name and holding it passively as a blank page. Even were Respondent to show NO intent to make use the disputed domain name for commercial gain, Respondent has NOT shown a plan, expenditures for development, intent to sell, or any other proposed use. Moreover, elusive promises and assurances do not a bona fide use make and they do not create legitimate interest in a disputed domain name containing another’s protected mark.
Further, Respondent filed NO Response.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
Complainant satisfied the requirements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
As noted above, Respondent does not dispute Complainant’s trademark rights.
The record shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a blank page. See Complaint.
Further, Respondent is located in an area in which Complainant claims to have not only a registration but active use of the mark in its commercial operations in Respondent’s home country.
Accordingly Examiner finds that Respondent registered (and/or purchased) and passively holds the domain name containing in its entirety Complainant’s protected mark and does so in bad faith. Respondent’s having the domain name resolve to a blank page stands alone as support for findings of bad faith; Complainant satisfied the requirements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
The Examiner further finds the Complaint was NOT brought in an abuse of the administrative proceeding or with material falsehoods as explained above.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence;
The Examiner therefore Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Honorable Carolyn M. Johnson (Ret.), Examiner
Dated: April 05, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page