BNP PARIBAS v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1605001674559
Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of Paris, France.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. of Kirkland, Washington, US.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotOnline Inc.
Registrars: Name.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: May 12, 2016
Commencement: May 12, 2016
Default Date: May 27, 2016
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.
Respondent has defaulted. Nonetheless, 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 in order to obtain a determination that a domain name should be suspended:
1. The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to
a mark for which Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that it is in current use;
2. Registrant has no right to or legitimate interest in the domain name;
and
3. The same domain name was registered and is being used by
Respondent in bad faith.
In its Complaint, Complainant shows that it holds a valid registration for the mark BNP PARIBAS, Registry No. 728,598, registered February 23, 2000, in International Class 035 [business management assistance, business organization and management consulting, etc.], International Class 036 [banking operations, financial operations, monetary operations, etc.] and International Class 038 [telecommunications, communications via fiber optic networks, communications via computer terminals, etc.], and that it is in current use.
Identity or Confusing Similarity
The contested domain name <bnpparibas.online> differs from Complainant’s BNP PARIBAS mark only by the addition of the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.online,” which happens to describe an aspect of Complainant’s business. For that reason, and inasmuch as every domain name requires a gTLD, there can be no question that the domain name is substantively identical, and therefore confusingly similar, to Complainant’s BNP PARIBAS mark. There is likewise no dispute that Complainant holds a valid registration for the BNP PARIBAS mark and that it is in current use. Accordingly, we so find.
Registrant’s Rights or Interests
Complainant alleges, and Registrant does not deny, that Registrant is not related to Complainant or its business, that Complainant does not carry on any business with Registrant, that the website resolving from the <bnpparibas.online> domain name is blank but for the appearance of the message “Hello World” and the date December 28, 2015, that Registrant has not demonstrated any preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that Respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting its BNP PARIBAS mark in a corresponding domain name, and that Registrant was aware of Complainant and its BNP PARIBAS mark when Registrant registered the domain name.
On these undenied facts, we have no difficulty in finding that Respondent has neither any rights to nor any legitimate interests in the contested domain name.
Registrant’s Bad Faith
Under the URS Procedure, essentially the same considerations that establish that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name are also pertinent to an analysis of whether the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. See URS Procedure ¶ 5.7. Accordingly, a finding of bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name <bnpparibas.online> follows directly from the discussion above of the absence of any rights or legitimate interests accruing to the benefit of Respondent from the facts presented in the Complaint filed in this proceeding.
We find from a review of the record that the Complaint is not an abuse of this proceeding and that it contains no material falsehoods.
Upon review of Complainant’s submissions, we find that Complainant has proven all three elements of the URS Procedure by clear and convincing evidence. We therefore Order that the domain name <bnpparibas.online> be SUSPENDED for the duration of its registration.
Terry F. Peppard, Examiner
Dated: May 31, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page