URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


BNP PARIBAS v. 张朋 et al.
Claim Number: FA2207002004007


DOMAIN NAME

<bnpparibas.top>
 <bnpparibasfortis.top>


PARTIES


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

   Respondent: ZhangPeng / 张朋 of Xi An, Shan Xi, II, CN
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: .TOP Registry
   Registrars: JIANGSU BANGNING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD

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.
   Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: July 13, 2022
   Commencement: July 18, 2022
   Default Date: August 2, 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



   Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]

  

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 


Examiner finds that Complainant holds a valid national or regional trademark registration and that is in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark BNP PARIBAS because the disputed domain name <bnpparibas.top> incorporates Complainant’s trademark BNP PARIBAS in its entirety, and the disputed domain name <bnpparibasfortis.top> incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety with the addition of the term FORTIS which is in reference with Complainant’s subsidiary Fortis Bank.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Complainant contends that Respondent has not developed demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent is not related to Complainant’s business. The disputed domain names remain inactive. Examiner finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.


[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 


Examiner notes that the disputed domain names remain inactive. Examiner observes that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith. Given the circumstances that i) Complainant is known as one of the most famous banks in the world and its mark being considered as a well-known mark; and ii) Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain names. Therefore, Examiner determines that Respondent registered and uses the the disputed domain names in 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:


  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.top
  2. bnpparibasfortis.top

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm
Examiner
Dated: August 2, 2022

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page