URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

BNP PARIBAS v. GDPR Masked et al.

Claim Number: FA2203001990448

 

DOMAIN NAME

<bnpparibas.link><bnp-paribas.link>

 

PARTIES

Complainant:  BNP PARIBAS of PARIS, France.

Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.

 

Respondent:  GDPR Masked of GDPR Masked, bucuresti, International, RO.

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registries:  UNR Corp.

Registrars:  PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com

 

EXAMINER

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: March 31, 2022

Commencement: April 5, 2022   

Default Date: April 20, 2022

 

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

 

The complaint and findings relate to two domains  <bnpparibas.link><bnp-paribas.link>. There is one Complainant and one (or more) Respondent, and no domain names were dismissed from this complaint.

 

The Respondent has registered the domain names <bnpparibas.link><bnp-paribas.link> on March 30, 2022 and the domain websites are inactive.

 

Complainant, BNP Paribas, is the owner of trademark BNP Paribas, amongst other trademarks, which it has registered in various jurisdictions since at least 2000. The Complainant has operated as the BNP Paribas brand for decades.

 

Complainant has claimed that the domain names in question are 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 names are identical through evidence of the trademark registration. The Complainant’s trademark is a well established mark, in use for over twenty years with international use and recognition as a financial institution.

 

The Examiner further finds that Complainant has proven that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain names. 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. Further the Complainant has confirmed that Respondent is neither an authorized agent or otherwise authorized to represent it.

 

The Examiner finds that the evidence proves the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Examiner finds that the domains give an automatic inference of affiliation to the entity holding the trademark, and would cause confusion amongst internet users into an assumption of an affiliation or relationship. (See Treeforms.com FA0010000095856)

 

 

DETERMINATION

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.

<bnpparibas.link>

<bnp-paribas.link>

 

 

Omar Haydar, Examiner

Dated:  April 25, 2022