About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

BNP Paribas v. Ibraci Links

Case No. D2021-2256

1. The Parties

The Complainant is BNP Paribas, France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is Ibraci Links, Mali.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bnpparibas.site> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Name.com, Inc. (Name.com LLC) (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 13, 2021. On July 13, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 14, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 13, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 27, 2021.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on October 8, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant owns numerous trade marks for BNP PARIBAS including:

- the International registration BNP PARIBAS, No. 728598, registered on February 23, 2000;

- the International registration BNP PARIBAS (logo), No. 745220, registered on September 18, 2000; and

- the International registration BNP PARIBAS, No. 876031, registered on November 24, 2005.

The Complainant is also the owner of a number of domain names containing the BNP PARIBAS mark, such as <bnpparibas.com>, registered on September 2, 1999.

The Domain Name was registered on July 10, 2021 and does not resolve to an active web site accessible by the general public.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant owns the trade mark BNP PARIBAS registered, inter alia, for financial services since 2000.

The Domain Name registered in 2021 consists of the Complainant’s mark verbatim and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.site” which does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. The Domain Name is therefore identical to the Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy.

Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active web site accessible by the general public so there is no bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Passive holding of the Domain Name containing a famous mark is bad faith registration and use under the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s BNP PARIBAS trade mark and the gTLD “.site”.

The gTLD “.site” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trade mark.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is identical for the purpose of the Policy to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

As such, the Panel holds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its trade mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name.

There is no evidence of any use of the Domain Name other than for an index page that is not accessible by the general public. Inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii).

Moreover, the nature of the Domain Name carries a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.5.1.

As such, the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Considering the fame of the Complainant’s BNB PARIBAS trade mark, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent was most likely aware of the Complainant’s trade mark when it registered the Domain Name.

Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation may support a finding of bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Here, the reputation of the Complainant’s mark, the failure of the Respondent to submit a response, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the Domain Name, being identical to the Complainant’s mark, may be put, support a finding of bad faith.

As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraph 4(b)(iii).

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <bnpparibas.site> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: October 19, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/