WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION BNP Paribas Personal Finance v. MYDNS.STORE Case No. D2018-2352 1. The Parties

The Complainant is BNP Paribas Personal Finance of Paris, France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is MYDNS.STORE of Nancy, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Uniregistrar Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 16, 2018. On October 16, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 17, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 24, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 24, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 October 30, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 19, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 20, 2018.

The Center appointed Marie-Emmanuelle Haas as the sole panelist in this matter on November 27, 2018. 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

BNP PARIBAS PERSONAL FINANCE (the Complainant) is a company which offers a complete range of loans for private individuals to support them in their projects. As a 100 percent subsidiary of BNP PARIBAS GROUP, and with EUR 91 billion of outstanding loans managed and EUR 1.543 million of net profit before tax, BNP PARIBAS PERSONAL FINANCE is among the leaders in personal financing in France and in the European Union through its consumer credit and home loan activities

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks CETELEM, such as:

- The international trademark CETELEM No. 528169 registered on August 25, 1988 and renewed,
- The international trademark CETELEM No. 647740 registered on September 4, 1995 and renewed,
- The international trademark CETELEM No. 1321480 registered on August 4, 2016.

The Complainant contends that it is also the owner of several domain names consisting of CETELEM, such as , registered in 1995, and registered in 2007.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 7, 2018, using a Privacy service, and redirects to the homepage of the domain marketplace at “”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark CETELEM. Indeed, the disputed domain name includes in its entirety the Complainant’s trademark without any adjunction of letter or word.

The new generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.credit” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the CETELEM trademark, which is the distinctive component of the disputed domain name. It is well established that merely adding a gTLD to a trademark is not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from a trademark.

On the contrary, the addition of the new gTLD “.credit” increases the likelihood of confusion, as the Complainant uses the CETELEM trademark to offer its clients a wide range of financial products, personal loans, revolving loans with or without a credit card, car loans or for work, live or at the point of sale.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with it nor authorized by it in any way to use the trademark CETELEM. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.

Moreover, the disputed domain name redirects to the domain name marketplace at “”.

Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the aim to divert Internet traffic initiall