URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


BNP PARIBAS v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1806001790073


DOMAIN NAME

<bnp-paribas.press>


PARTIES


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

   Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama, Panama, PA
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: DotPress Inc.
   Registrars: Namecheap

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.
   Dawn Osborne, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: June 5, 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: [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:
  (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 domain name in dispute consists of the Complainant’s registered mark with the addition of a hyphen and a gTLD neither of which distinguish this Domain name from the Complainant”s mark.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Use for competing pay per view links is not bona fide use or non commercial legitimate fair use. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and the C9plainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the Complainant’s mark.


[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 


Use for competing pay per click links falls under grounds c and d above.


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. bnp-paribas.press

 

Dawn Osborne
Examiner
Dated: June 20, 2018

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page