{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104176", "time_of_filling": "2021-11-19 09:22:18", "domain_names": [ "bnnparibas.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BNP PARIBAS" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Fundacion Comercio Electronico" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant is an international banking group with a presence in 68 countries, and one of the largest banks in the world with more than 193,000 employees and EUR7.1 billion in net profit. The Complainant stands as a leading bank in the Eurozone and a prominent international banking institution.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that its trademark \"BNP Paribas\" is widely used for banking services worldwide.\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several trademarks and domain names, including the term \" BNP PARIBAS®” at least since 2000.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on April 1, 2021 by the organization Fundacion Comercio Electronico based in Panama and it resolves to a parking page with commercial links, including some using Complainant’s trademark “BNP PARIBAS”.\r\n\r\nAccording to Complainant’s non-contested allegations, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.\r\n\r\nFor the purpose of this case, the Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.\r\n\r\nThe facts asserted by the Complainant are not contested by the Respondent", "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": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nFirst element: Similarity\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark BNP PARIBAS®\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the misspelling in the domain name (the substitution of the letter “P” by “N”) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BNP PARIBAS®.\r\n\r\nSecond element: Rights or legitimate interest\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names and that he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use the trademark BNP PARIBAS®. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark BNP PARIBAS®.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant indicates that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links and past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.\r\n\r\nThird element: Bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark BNP PARIBAS®\r\n\r\nThe Complainant indicates that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark, which evidences bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark BNP PARIBAS® was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP Panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends 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.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant indicates that the Respondent has a history of registering domain names which incorporate the third parties' trademarks. See for instance CAC cases no. 102871 and no. 104014.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT\r\n\r\nRespondent did not reply to the Complaint.", "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).", "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).", "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).", "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": [ "Victor Hugo Garcia Padilla, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-12-16 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks consisting of the term “BNP PARIBAS®”, such as i) the international trademark BNP Paribas® n° 728598 registered since February 23, 2000 in classes 35, 36 38, ii) the international trademark BNP Paribas and device® n° 745220 registered since September 9, 2000 in classes 09, 35, 36 & 38, iii) the international trademark BNP Paribas® n° 876031 registered since November 24, 2005 in classes 09, 35, 36 38.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant owns domain names with the term “BNP PARIBAS”, such as i) created since September 1, 1999 ii) created since December 28, 1999 and iii) created since July 22, 2008.", "decision_domains": { "BNNPARIBAS.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }