BNP PARIBAS v. samuel wrobel
Claim Number: FA1605001674760
Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS, France.
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: samuel wrobel of lille, International, FR.
Respondent Representative: /
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: XYZ.COM LLC
Registrars: Key-Systems, LLC
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.
Bart Van Besien, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: May 13, 2016
Commencement: May 13, 2016
Default Date: May 31, 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.
Findings of fact: Complainant claims to be the owner of an international trademark “BNP Paribas”. Complainant has provided evidence of this trademark (Reg. No. 728598; valid for classes 35, 36 and 38), registered on 2 February 2000 (this trademark was registered long before the registration of the disputed domain name).
Complainant also claims that the trademark “BNP Paribas” was registered with the TMCH (Trademark Clearinghouse) since 2013. Complainant submitted a signed declaration – proof of use, as submitted to the TMCH (dated 19 September 2013).
The Respondent did not file a response.
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 is 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
URS 1.2.6.1 (i) covers the domain name at issue in this case. The domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark paired with the generic top level domain “.xyz” and the generic dash “-“.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Respondent did not file a response and did not provide evidence of legitimate rights or interests in the domain name. There is no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of any similar or identical trademarks owned by the Respondent. There is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. There is no indication that the Respondent is otherwise related to the Complainant’s business. There is no evidence of the Respondent being commonly known as “BNP Paribas” prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The domain name is currently parked (no bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate or noncommercial or fair use). There is no evidence of any demonstrable preparations by the Respondent to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name was 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
There is no evidence of use by Respondent (or demonstrable preparations to use) of the domain name or a name corresponding to it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods. The website available via the domain name points to a parking page. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate or fair use of the domain name. The Examiner accepts that the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the moment of registration of the domain name.
There are no circumstances known to the Examiner that refute the claim of bad faith registration or bad faith use.
The Examiner finds that the Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds the Complaint well founded. No Response was submitted.
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.
Bart Van Besien, Examiner
Dated: May 31, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page