BNP PARIBAS v. [Unnamed Registrant]
Claim Number: FA1811001816473
Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS 09, France.
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: patrick yanick of Torcy, FR.
Respondent Representative: None
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotSite Inc.
Registrars: CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH d/b/a joker.com
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 15, 2018
Commencement: November 15, 2018
Default Date: November 30, 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.
Notwithstanding that Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make out a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements of the Procedure to obtain a determination that a domain name should be suspended.
i. that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use;
ii. that the registrant (Respondent) has no legitimate right to or interest in the domain name; and
iii. that the domain name was registered or is being used by the registrant (Respondent) in bad faith.
In its Complaint, Complainant shows that it holds a valid registration for the trade mark BNP PARIBAS, on file with the World Intellectual Property Organization as Registry No. 728598, registered February 23, 2000, in International Class 35 [advertising; business management; business administration; office functions], as well as in International Class 36 [insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs] and International Class 38 [telecommunications]. Respondent does not dispute any of this.
We also take note that reliable publicly available records reveal that Respondent registered the domain name <bnpparibas-fr.site> on October 27, 2018. Again, Respondent does not deny this.
IDENTITY OR CONFUSING SIMILARITY
The <bnpparibas-fr.site> domain name contains the BNP PARIBAS mark in its entirety, with only the addition of a hyphen, the country code “fr” for France, where Complainant is headquartered, and the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.site.” Because the country code “fr” identifies the domain name with Complainant’s native country, while the appended hyphen adds no meaning to the result, and because every domain name requires a gTLD, these alterations to the mark, made in creating the domain name, are of no consequence to our analysis. Moreover, there is no dispute in the record that the challenged domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BNP PARIBAS mark, or that Complainant holds a valid registration for the mark and that it is in current use. Accordingly, we so find.
REGISTRANT’S RIGHTS OR INTERESTS
Complainant secured trademark protection for its BNP PARIBAS trade mark in the year 2000, while Respondent obtained registration for its <bnpparibas-fr.site> domain name much later, in 2018. As a result, Complainant’s rights in its mark are senior in time to any claim Respondent might have made for rights to or interests in the domain name.
Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not related to Complainant, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the contested domain name, that Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in a bona fide offering of goods or services, that the domain name resolves to an inactive website, and that Respondent could not employ the domain name in commerce without offending Complainant’s rights in its BNP PARIBAS mark. In light of these contentions, none of which is objected to by Respondent, we conclude that Respondent has no evident rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION OR USE
Under the Procedure, essentially the same considerations, described above, that make it clear that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <bnpparibas-fr.site> domain name are also pertinent to an analysis of the question whether the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. We may, however, also take into account that it is evident from the facts before us that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the BNP PARIBAS mark when it registered the domain name. Accordingly, we find that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith.
Upon review of Complainant’s submissions, we determine that Complainant has adequately demonstrated all three elements of the URS to a standard of clear and convincing evidence. It is, therefore, Ordered that the domain name <bnpparibas-fr.site> be SUSPENDED for the duration of its registration.
Terry F. Peppard, Examiner
Dated: December 4, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page