Westmore · UDRP DecisionBnpparibas.site
The Panel ordered transfer of <bnpparibas.site>. It found the Domain Name identical to the Complainant’s BNP PARIBAS trademark, found no rights or legitimate interests because the Respondent was unauthorized and made no bona fide or legitimate use, and found bad-faith registration and use based on the mark’s reputation, the Respondent’s likely awareness, the Respondent’s default, passive holding, and the implausibility of any good-faith use of a domain identical to the mark.
The timeline behind bnpparibas.site
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind bnpparibas.site — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates an exact-match trademark case in which passive holding was sufficient for transfer. The Panel’s conclusion rested on the combined weight of longstanding trademark rights, the mark’s reputation, the absence of authorization or legitimate use, respondent default, and the implausibility of a good-faith use of a domain identical to the mark.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
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
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around bnpparibas.site
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.