Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-106207

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant owns numerous BNP PARIBAS trademarks, including the following:

• international trademark BNP PARIBAS n°728598 registered since 2000-02-23;
• international trademark BNP PARIBAS n°745220 registered since 2000-09-18;
• international trademark BNP PARIBAS n°876031 registered since 2005-11-24.

The Complainant is one of the largest banks in the world, with a presence in 65 countries and €50.4 billion in revenues.

 The Complainant owns several BNP PARIBAS trademarks and a considerable number of domain names, including <bnpparibas.com>, registered since September 2, 1999.

The disputed domain name <bnppribas.com> was registered on June 8, 2019 and it currently resolves to a parking page with commercial links; MX servers are also configured.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

1. The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the BNP PARIBAS mark and that the latter is very well-known worldwide.

The Panel finds the disputed domain name <bnppribas.com> to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BNP PARIBAS because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, with the mere deletion of letter A, which does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark, but rather seems a clear example of typosquatting, since the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark.

2. According to the information provided by the Complainant, the Respondent is not affiliated nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. Likewise, the Complainant neither licensed nor authorized the Respondent to make any use of its trademark BNP PARIBAS, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name on behalf of the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.

It is undeniable that Complainant is only required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Once such prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.

Given all the above and taken into account the fact that the Respondent did not provide any response within the present proceeding, the Panel accepts the contentions of the Complainant that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in <bnppribas.com>.

3. The Panel finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, neither of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name represents a clear example of typosquatting, an activity which is considered evidence of bad faith by the consistent case law in domain name disputes (see, among others, NAF case no. FA 157321 Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu).

Moreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links and such circumstance leads to believe the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith (see for instance WIPO Case No. D2018-0497, StudioCanal v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Sudjam Admin, Sudjam LLC: “In that circumstance, whether the commercial gain from misled Internet users is gained by the Respondent or by the Registrar (or by another third party), it remains that the Respondent controls and cannot (absent some special circumstance) disclaim responsibility for, the content appearing on the website to which the disputed domain name resolve […] so the Panel presumes that the Respondent has allowed the disputed domain name to be used with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.”). 

Consequently, the Panel believes that the same was registered and is being used in bad faith.