BNP PARIBAS v. patrick yanick
Claim Number: FA1810001814161
Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS 09, France.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: patrick yanick of Torcy, International, FR.
Respondent Representative:
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotSite Inc.
Registrars: CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH d/b/a joker.com
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.
James Bridgeman, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: October 30, 2018
Commencement: October 30, 2018
Default Date: November 14, 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") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
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.
The domain name is identical to the trademark BNP PARIBAS in which Complainant has rights through its ownership of international trademark BMP PARIBAS, registration number 728598, registered on February 2, 2000. The new gTLD extension <.site> need not be considered for the purpose of comparison in this case.
Complainant has made out a clear and convincing prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or interests in respect of the disputed domain name: Respondent is not related to the Complainant’s business; Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the dispute domain name which consists of Complainant’s registered trademark in its entirety; the website to which the disputed domain name resolves to a malicious website; Respondent has not developed a demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; and Respondent could not have used the domain name without infringing the Complainant’s intellectual property rights in the trademark BNP Paribas.
Because the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s unique trademark it is most probable that Respondent must have been aware of that mark when registering the domain name and on the balance of probabilities Respondent has registered the domain name only in order to take predatory advantage of Complainant’s mark. Complainant has therefore made out a clear and convincing prima facie case that the disputed domain name was therefore registered and is used in bad faith.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<bnpparibas.site>.
James Bridgeman, Examiner
Dated: November 14, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page