BNP PARIBAS v. Domains By Proxy, LLC et al.
Claim Number: FA2111001973418
Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of Paris, France.
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: Domains By Proxy, LLC of Tempe, Arizona, US.
PwC Belgium of Sint Stevens Woluwe, Belgium.
Vito Rallo of , Belgium.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotSite Inc.
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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.
James Bridgeman, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 16, 2021
Commencement: November 16, 2021
Response Date: November 29, 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.
Complainant is the owner of International trademark "BNP PARIBAS" n° 728598, registered on February 23rd, 2000. This trademark is also registered in the TMCH since October 23rd, 2013.
URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
A. The disputed domain name is identical
The Complainant has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name <bnpparibasfortis.site> is confusingly similar to the International trademark "BNP PARIBAS" n° 728598, registered on February 23, 2000.
Complainant’s BNP PARIBAS mark is the initial and dominant element of the disputed domain name. The evidence shows that the element FORTIS is a reference with the Complainant’s subsidiary Fortis Bank and the new gTLD extension <.site> would be considered a necessary technical requirement for a domain name.
B. The Respondent has no rights or interests in respect of the domain name and is not related to the Complainant’s business.
The Complainant has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has credibly brought this proceeding because the Respondent is no related to the Complainant or its business. The disputed domain name is being passively held and inactive so the Respondent is not using it for any legitimate business purpose or for the bona fide sale of any goods or provision of any service. There is no evidence that the Respondent has developed a demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Given the preexisting rights of the Complainant in the BNP PARIBAS mark, and its extensive use of the mark, this Expert finds that the Respondent could not have used the domain name without infringing the Complainant’s intellectual property rights on the trademark BNP PARIBAS.
C. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith
The Complainant has adduced clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. This Examiner accepts that the Complainant’s BNP PARIBAS is extensively used and well known across the world. Thus, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark BNP PARIBAS at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
Moreover, the evidence adduced in the Complaint, shows that the disputed domain name is inactive. There is no reasonable explanation as to why the disputed domain name, which is being passively held, was chosen and registered, except to reference and take predatory advantage of Complainant’s preexisting trademark rights.
This Examiner finds therefore that by this registration, the Respondent has clearly set out to target the Complainant’s company, trademark, and goodwill.
The disputed domain name is being passively held in circumstances that amount to use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
Respondent has not alleged, nor has this Expert independently found, that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.
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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
<bnpparibasfortis.site>
James Bridgeman, Examiner
Dated: November 29, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page