{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104458", "time_of_filling": "2022-03-31 09:45:45", "domain_names": [ "bnpotc.com", "bnp-otc.com", "bnp-exchange.com", "bnpcoins.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BNP PARIBAS" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Nasdaq, plum Bruce" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nA. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark BNP PARIBAS® and BNP® while the trademark is included in its entirety.\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\nThe terms “OTC” (for “Over-the-counter”), “exchange” or “coins” refer to the trading, therefore is closely related to the Complainant and its business activities. The addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademarks of the Complainant. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademarks and its domain names associated.\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.\r\n\r\nB. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names\r\nA complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. 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 the allegation that the respondents lacks any rights or legitimate interest in the domain names.\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name because the WHOIS information is not similar to the disputed domain name. The Respondent´s denomination is \"Nasdaq - plum Bruce\" and it has not acquired trademarks mark rights on this term.\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- Forum Claim No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group .\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and that he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business while the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use the trademark BNP PARIBAS® or BNP®. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\nThe disputed domain names and are inactive. The Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain names since their registration, and the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain names.\r\nThe disputed domain names and redirect to what looks like a trading website by reproducing the BNP logo. Using a disputed domain name to compete with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The Respondent uses the disputed domain names to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website.\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- Forum Claim No. FA 1741737 Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO;\r\n- Forum Claim No. FA 1659965 General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent uses the disputed domain names to pass off as Complainant and phish for users’ personal information. The Respondent uses the site attached to the disputed domain names to promote unauthorized use of Complainant’s systems. The usage of Complainant’s NETFLIX mark without a significant reputation is not fair as the site.\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- Forum Claim No. FA 1737766 in Airbnb, Inc. v. Nima Rahnemoon;\r\n- Forum Claim No. FA 1741976 in Netflix, Inc. v. Irpan Panjul \/ 3corp.inc.\r\n\r\nC. The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain names are identical to its trademark BNP PARIBAS® which is well-known.\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2017-2167, BNP Paribas v. Ronan Laster (“T).\r\n\r\nRegarding and \r\nAs demonstrated by the websites and , the Respondent clearly knows the Complainant and its trademarks. The resolving websites display Complainant’s mark and distinctive logo, and pictures of Complainant’s products. The Complainant recalled:\r\n- Forum Claim No. FA 1535826 in Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian;\r\n- Forum Claim No. FA 1000079 in Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA;\r\n- Forum Claim No. FA 1790949 in Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy \/ Ripple Reserve Fund.\r\n\r\nRegarding and \r\nThe disputed domain names are inactive. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain names, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate.\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows;\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contended that the Respondent is known in such pattern of conduct.\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n- Forum Claim No. FA2202001984496 in Cboe Exchange, Inc. v. plum Bruce \/ Nasdaq ", "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 names.", "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed.\r\n\r\nThe Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed allegations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules because of the Respondent's failure to submit a response.\r\n\r\nTherefore, in the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complainant.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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": [ "JUDr. Vojtěch Trapl" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-05-17 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "As a banking group, BNP Paribas was born on 23 May 2000 from the merger of “Banque Nationale de Paris” (BNP) and Paribas bank. BNP PARIBAS S.A., the Complainant, is an international banking group with a presence in 68 countries, and one of the largest banks in the world as it might be seen on the website https:\/\/www.group.bnpparibas. With more than 193,000 employees and €7.1 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 owns numerous trademarks BNP PARIBAS®, such as:\r\n- International trademark BNP PARIBAS® n°728598 registered since 23 February 2000;\r\n- International trademark BNP PARIBAS® n°745220 registered since 18 September 2000;\r\n- International trademark BNP PARIBAS® n°876031 registered since 24 November 2005;\r\n- European trademark BNP® n° 000089649 registered since 1 April1996.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of a large portfolio of domain names “BNP PARIBAS”, such as:\r\n- , registered since 2 September1999;\r\n- , registered since 29 December 1999;\r\n- , registered since 23 July 2008.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names , , and were registered on 12 November 2021.", "decision_domains": { "BNPOTC.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BNP-OTC.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BNP-EXCHANGE.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "BNPCOINS.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }