URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


BNP PARIBAS v.
Claim Number: FA2009001911717


DOMAIN NAME

<bnpparibas-account.pro>


PARTIES


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

   Respondent: Lina Adami of strasbourg Bas-Rhin, Bas-Rhin, FR
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Afilias Limited
   Registrars: Hosting Concepts B.V. dba 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.
   Hector Ariel Manoff, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: September 10, 2020
   Commencement: September 15, 2020
   Default Date: September 30, 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 is the owner of International trademark "BNP PARIBAS" n° 728598, registered on 2000. Moreover, the mentioned trademark is also registered in the TMCH since 2013. 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.

  

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 disputed domain name <bnpparibas-account.pro> is identical to Complainant’s registered BNP PARIBAS mark. It combines the mentioned Trademark with the addition of the term ACCOUNT (related to the Complainant’s banking activities) and the generic top level domain “.pro”, indicating the purpose of offering BNP PARIBAS services. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark registrations and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.1 by demonstrating that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national registration which is in current use.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered trademark BNP PARIBAS. Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use the BNP PARIBAS Marks or to apply for any Domain Name incorporating the BNP PARIBAS Mark. Respondent has not filed a response to this complaint and consequently no evidence was submitted to prove that he is commonly known as BNP PARIBAS. Consequently, there is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in BNP PARIBAS and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. The Examiner finds that the requirements set forth by URS 1.2.6.2 have been also met.


[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 


Since Complainant’s trademark is prior to the disputed domain name’s registration, Examiner concludes that the registration of the disputed domain name was made on bad faith. The Complainant and its distinctive trademark “BNP PARIBAS” is known as one of the most famous banks in the world. The Respondent, which is located in France, was aware of the Complainant’s trademark “BNP PARIBAS” at the moment of registration of the disputed domain name. Regarding the use of the domain name, the website redirected to a website copying the Complainant’s official website and trademark. It was designed to attract users to its website where it impersonates Complainant. Customers can apparently buy BNP PARIBAS services in Respondent’s website. Furthermore, Examiner agrees with complainant in that Respondent 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. Examiner finds that the disputed domain names are being used in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3.


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:


  1. 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:

  1. bnpparibas-account.pro

 

Hector Ariel Manoff
Examiner
Dated: October 2, 2020

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page