{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103699", "time_of_filling": "2021-03-31 10:30:50", "domain_names": [ "bnp-paribas.online" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BNP PARIBAS" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Pascal chevalier" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is among the large international banking groups, based in France but commercially present all around the world, in as many as 71 countries. With nearly 200 thousand employees, its annual net revenue amounts to several billion Euros and its trademarks are well-known among consumers.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns a large-sized portfolio of trademarks including the wording \"BNP Paribas\", among which an EU registration dating back to 1999. It also owns a multitude of related domain names, like and . It is notably the registrant of since September 2, 1999.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on March 20, 2021 by the Respondent.\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its “BNP Paribas” trademark, as it is identical to and wholly incorporates this trademark (to which it merely adds a hyphen between the two words). This last element is sufficient to support the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. Indeed, the mere adding of a hyphen to the Complainant’s trademark does not change the overall impression of a most likely connection with the well-known trademark “BNP Paribas” of the Complainant. As to the gTLD “.online”, the Complainant suggests that it should be disregarded, as per the usual practice regarding TLDs. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant maintains that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, the Complainant is neither affiliated with nor has it ever authorised the Respondent to register its trademark as a domain name and the Complainant has no business with the Respondent. Further, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the BNP Paribas trademark (especially in France, where the Respondent is based), the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark in an intentionally designed way with the aim to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names, and this is evidence of the fact that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.\r\n\r\nWith respect to use in bad faith, the Complainant points out that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name as a parking page in order to attract users to other relevant websites with the aim of commercial gain, a fact that by itself obviously proves use in bad faith. \r\n\r\nFor all these reasons, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.", "rights": "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).\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's whole trademark “BNP Paribas”, separated by a hyphen. The addition of a simple hyphen is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nAs far as the gTLD \".online\" is concerned, it is generally recognized that top level domains do not have any bearing in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity, according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nHence, the Panel is satisfied that the first requirement under the Policy is met.\r\n", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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).\r\n\r\nSince proving a negative fact is almost impossible, panelists in UDRP proceedings have generally agreed that it is sufficient for the Complainant to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent.\r\n\r\nIn the case at issue, the Complainant argued that it had never authorised the Respondent to register the BNP Paribas trademark in a domain name, and that it had never licensed its trademark to the Respondent. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Respondent has not demonstrated any use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. On the contrary, through a parking page, the Respondent has attempted to attract users to other relevant websites for commercial gain.\r\n\r\nFinally, there is no other evidence in the case file that could demonstrate that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nIn view of the foregoing, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In order to rebut the Complainant's arguments, the Respondent had the possibility to make his own defense. However, the Respondent has chosen not to file a Response.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel is satisfied that also the second requirement under the Policy is met.\r\n", "bad_faith": "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).\r\n\r\nAs far as registration in bad faith is concerned, given the reputation of the Complainant's trademark and the fact that the disputed domain name fully incorporates this trademark, it is evident that, at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent –based in France, where the Complainant’s headquarters are situated – was well aware of the Complainant's trademark. The registration as domain name of a third party's well-known trademark with full knowledge of the fact that the rights over this trademark belong to a third party amounts to registration in bad faith.\r\n\r\nWith respect to use in bad faith, the disputed domain name has been used as a parking page, in order to attract users for commercial gain to relevant websites. This fact is to be combined with the full incorporation of the Complainant’s reputable trademark in the disputed domain name. For this Panel, such fraudulent behaviour clearly amounts to use in bad faith. Thus, it is impossible to conceive any plausible active use of the disputed domain name that would be legitimate. Therefore, the Panel finds it clear that the disputed domain name was used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nFor all circumstances mentioned above, the Panel is satisfied that also the third requirement under the Policy is satisfied.\r\n", "procedural_factors": "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.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Sozos-Christos Theodoulou" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-04-27 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "In these proceedings, the Complainant relies on the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- BNP Paribas, International Registration No. 728598, based on a French trademark, registered as of February 23, 2000, in the name of BNP PARIBAS (the Complainant);\r\n- BNP PARIBAS & device, International Registration No. 745220, based on a French trademark, registered as of September 18, 2000, in the name of BNP PARIBAS (the Complainant); and\r\n- BNP Paribas, International Registration No. 876031, based on a French trademark, registered as of November 24, 2005, in the name of BNP PARIBAS (the Complainant),\r\n \r\namong many others. The Complainant owns hundreds of similar well-known trademarks in various countries, all around the world, which have not been mentioned in the Complaint.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "BNP-PARIBAS.ONLINE": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }