URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

BNP PARIBAS v. REDACTED PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA1810001810411

DOMAIN NAME

<bnp-paribas.cash>

PARTIES

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

	Respondent: Florian Solluk of Engelstadt, DE

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
	Registrars: Cronon AG

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.
	Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: October 5, 2018
	Commencement: October 5, 2018
	Default Date: October 22, 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

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Complainants: There are no multiple complainants or respondents and no extraneous domain names require dismissal.

Findings of Fact: The Complainant, BNP PARIBAS of Paris, France is the owner of the international trademark registration for BNP PARIBAS, No. 728598, registered on February 2, 2000. for goods and services in classes 35, 36, 38. The BNP PARIBAS mark was verified by the Trademark Clearinghouse. The Complainant uses the BNP PARIBAS mark on its website under <bnpparibas.com>. The website which the Domain Name resolves to is a blank page with information about “SOLLUK GMBH & CO. KG ¬ SOLLUK UNTERNEHMENSGRUPPE”. The Complainant contends that <bnp-paribas.cash> is confusingly similar to the BNP PARIBAS mark, and was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent who has no rights or legitimate interests in the 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

The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is the registered owner of the BNP PARIBAS mark as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use. The Domain Name fully incorporates the Complainant’s mark and merely adds a hyphen and a gTLD “.cash”. Neither of them is sufficient to distinguish the Domain name from the BNP PARIBAS. Moreover, in the context of the Complainant’s activity in banking business, gTLD “.cash” can even increase the likelihood of confusion of the Internet users. The Examiner finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Whois data indicates that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Moreover, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to promote “SOLLUK GMBH & CO. KG ¬ SOLLUK UNTERNEHMENSGRUPPE” is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to support a possible basis on which the Respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the Examiner accepts the Complainant’s unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and concludes that the second element of paragraph 1.2.6.2. of the URS Procedure is satisfied.

[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 BNP PARIBAS mark is famous all around the world and has been used for years. Therefore, the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant's mark when registering <bnp-paribas.cash>. The Examiner finds that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith. Furthermore, the Respondent uses the Domain Name to maintain a blank webpage with a different company address which itself can be considered as a bad faith use of a domain name. In the light of above, the Complainant satisfies the standard set out in paragraph 1.2.6.3. of the URS Procedure.

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:

bnp-paribas.cash

Piotr Nowaczyk
Examiner
Dated: October 25, 2018

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page