URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


BNP PARIBAS v. REDACTED FOR PRIVACY et al.
Claim Number: FA1806001789882


DOMAIN NAME

<bnpparibasfortis.vip>


PARTIES


   Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of Paris, France
  
Complainant Representative: Nameshield Enora Millocheau of Angers, France

   Respondent: Sami El Binni of Dubai, United Arab Emirates
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Minds + Machines Group Limited
   Registrars: GoDaddy

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 FORTIS " trademark based on its European trademark registration No. 008373185 , registered on February 17th, 2010, which predates the registration of the disputed domain name. The ownership and examples of use have been confirmed by entries in the Trademark Clearinghouse, where the mark has been registered since December 5, 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 incorporates the Complainant’s registered mark " BNP PARIBAS FORTIS " in its entirety, simply adding the new gTLD “.VIP”. The consensus amongst panels is that similar changes in a registered mark fail to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a registered trademark. See F.R. Buarger & Associates, Inc. v. shanshan lin, FA 1623319 (FORUM July 9, 2015) (holding, “Respondent’s <frburger.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s FRBURGER mark because it differs only by the domain name’s addition of the top-level domain name “.com.”). Therefore, addition of the new gTLD ".VIP" is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark " BNP PARIBAS FORTIS ".


[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 been on Registrar parking page since its registration. The Registrant is in no way related to the Complainant’s business, and no licenses or authorizations for any use of the Complainant’s trademark “BNP PARIBAS FORTIS” have been granted to the Respondent. 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. 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 having its presence worldwide. Its trade name BNP PARIBAS and trademark BNP PARIBAS FORTIS are known to consumers in many countries, so it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark “BNP PARIBAS FORTIS” 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:


  1. 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:

  1. bnpparibasfortis.vip

 

Natalia Stetsenko
Examiner
Dated: June 25, 2018

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page