BNP PARIBAS v. GDPR Masked
Claim Number: FA2109001962024
Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS, France.
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: GDPR Masked, US.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
Registrars: Hostinger, UAB
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.
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: September 1, 2021
Commencement: September 1, 2021
Default Date: September 16, 2021
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.
The Complainant, BNP Paribas, is a French banking group and one of the largest banks in the world by total assets. The Complainant owns numerous trademarks including international word mark BNP PARIBAS No. 728598, registered with WIPO on February 23, 2000 in classes 35, 36 and 38.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <bnp-paribas.email> on August 16, 2021. The disputed domain name resolved to a parking page.
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 record makes clear that the Complainant "holds a valid national or regional registration and that [it] is in current use". The Examiner finds that the second-level portion of the disputed domain name is virtually identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BNP PARIBAS registered trademark. The addition of a hyphen between the terms “BNP” and “PARIBAS” instead of a space in the Complainant’s mark is insignificant and does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion. As the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, the new gTLD “.EMAIL” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825). As the registered domain name is confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration that is in current use, the Examiner considers that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the URS in accordance with paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the URS.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its registered BNP PARIBAS trademark. The Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he or she is commonly known under the disputed domain name. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in BNP PARIBAS and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. According to the Complainant’s evidence, the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page.
The Examiner observes that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s distinctive BNP PARIBAS trademark. Combined with the gTLD “.EMAIL”, which could be considered to refer to an email service of the Complainant, the Examiner finds that the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant and cannot constitute fair use (see section 2.5.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0). The Respondent does not contest the arguments of the Complainant. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the second element for the Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.2 has also been proven.
[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 well-known and distinctive character of the Complainant’s BNP PARIBAS trademark has been confirmed in previous UDRP and URS cases. Given the fact that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to this trademark, the Examiner finds that the Respondent must have had the Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
The Examiner observes that the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page. In the circumstances of this case, the Examiner finds that it is difficult to imagine any future good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
The Respondent did not file any response to contest the above. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the third element for the Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven.
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.
<bnp-paribas.email>
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, Examiner
Dated: September 20, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page