BNP PARIBAS v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA2002001883472
Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS 09, France.
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: WhoisGuard Protected / WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama, International, PA.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Omar Haydar, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: February 17, 2020
Commencement: February 18, 2020
Default Date: March 8, 2020
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.
Complainant is the owner of trademark BNP Paribas, which has been registered in various jurisdictions since 2000(noting that the registration provided expired 6 days after the filing of the complaint and prior to the issuance of this judgment, which has assumed the renewal of such registration). The domain name also includes Fortis, which Complainants assert is the name of a new subsidiary of Complainant, which has been confirmed by Examiner.
Complainant has claimed that the domain name in question is identical to their protected word or mark.
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:
1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use.
2. Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
3. The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Examiner finds that Complainant has proven that the domain name is identical through evidence of the trademark registration. The Complainant’s trademark is registered in a number of jurisdictions and has been in use at least 20 years.
The Examiner further finds that Complainant has proven that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. The Complainant has neither licensed the trademark to the Respondent for use, nor has the Respondent made any claim to a legitimate right or interest to the name.
The Examiner finds that the evidence proves the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant has provided evidence that the domain name in question utilizes the protected mark as well as the name of a subsidiary of Complainant without authorization from the Complainant.
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.
Omar Haydar, Examiner
Dated: March 08, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page