URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

BNP PARIBAS v. REDACTED PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA2007001904844

DOMAIN NAME

<bnpparibasfortis.support>

PARTIES

	Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS, France
	Complainant Representative: Nameshield Enora Millocheau of Angers, France

	Respondent: sara swoens of antwerpen, Antwerpen, II, BE

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
	Registrars: Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider

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: July 20, 2020
	Commencement: July 21, 2020
	Default Date: August 5, 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").

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: Complainant owns and uses the BNP PARIBAS 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.

[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 registered domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BNP PARIBAS mark. The addition of the word FORTIS and the .support extension are not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Complainant has not licensed the mark to Respondent and there is no evidence Respondent has any legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

[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 confusing similarity between Complainant's mark and the registered domain name, Complainant's ownership of the BNP PARIBAS mark, Respondent's lack of any interest in the domain name, and Respondent's passive holding of the domain name give rise to the inference that Respondent registered the domain name to take predatory advantage of Complainant's trademark rights. This is bad faith.

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:

bnpparibasfortis.support

Anne M. Wallace
Examiner
Dated: August 8, 2020

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page