URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

BNP PARIBAS v. REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA1806001789877

DOMAIN NAME

<bnpparibas.work>

PARTIES

	Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS, France
	Complainant Representative: Nameshield Laurent Becker of Angers, France

	Respondent: Jan Martinek of Kladno, CZ

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Minds + Machines Group Limited
	Registrars: Gransy

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.
	Vali Sakellarides, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: June 4, 2018
	Commencement: June 4, 2018
	Default Date: June 19, 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 is the French bank named “BNP PARIBAS”. It owns International trademark “BNP PARIBAS” no. 728598, registered on February 23rd, 2000. The Complainant submitted a copy of said trademark from TMVIEW. Complainant submits that the trademark has been registered in the TMCH since October 23rd, 2013. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the above trademark and that the addition of the new gTLD. “.WORK” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark “BNP PARIBAS”, since the term “.WORK” is generic compared with the distinctive expression “BNP PARIBAS” and therefore doesn’t eliminate the likelihood of confusion with the trademark “BNP PARIBAS”. The addition of generic wording to a trademark in a domain name is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity and panels have usually found the incorporated trademark to constitute the dominant component of the disputed domain name (WIPO D2014-1590, Fiskars Corporation v. James Taverner). Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark “BNP PARIBAS”, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. Complainant contends it is highly probable that the Respondent isn’t known as the domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent wasn’t commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information wasn’t similar to the disputed domain name (NAF FA699652, Braun Corp. v. Loney). Complainant provides a screenshot of the website in relation with the disputed domain name showing that it is a “parking” webpage. Complainant contends that its company and its distinctive trademark “BNP PARIBAS” is known as one of the most famous banks in the world and that the Respondent was aware of said mark at the moment of registration of the disputed domain name.

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

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

[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

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:

bnpparibas.work

Vali Sakellarides
Examiner
Dated: June 21, 2018

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page