
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
        BNP PARIBAS PERSONAL FINANCE v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1242648248
        Claim Number: FA1806001790095
    
DOMAIN NAME
<cetelem.app>
PARTIES
| Complainant: BNP PARIBAS PERSONAL FINANCE of Paris, France | |
| 
                    Complainant Representative: Nameshield 
Daria Baskova of Angers, France 
                 | 
| Respondent: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1242648248 Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1242648248 of ON, CA | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
| Registries: Charleston Road Registry Inc. | |
| Registrars: Google Inc. | 
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. | |
| Anne M. Wallace, 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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has a registered trademark for CETELEM since 1988. The only difference between the mark and the disputed domain name is the addition of the gTLD, .app. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorised respondent to use the disputed domain name. 
                    [URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
                     Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent has merely parked the disputed domain name as "under construction" since its registration. 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: 
 
                    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:
                         
 | 
Anne M. Wallace Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page