Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Wang Hai Bo
Claim Number: FA1904001840599
Complainant is Bridgewater Associates, LP (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Wang Hai Bo (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bridgewaterassociates.wang>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 25, 2019; the Forum received payment on April 25, 2019.
On Apr 26, 2019, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bridgewaterassociates.wang> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 26, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 16, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bridgewaterassociates.wang. Also on April 26, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 21, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Preliminary Issue: Language of Proceeding
The Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings Chinese.
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel has the authority to determine a different language for the proceedings, having regard to the circumstances of the case. It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Pursuant to Rule 10(b), Respondent must be given a fair opportunity to present its case. Pursuant to Rule 10(c), the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”).
In the present case, Respondent corresponded in English (through its agent) with Complainant; has been found to be sufficiently conversant in English in a previous UDRP proceeding (see Bridgewater Associates, LP v. wang hai bo, FA1812001820728 (Forum Jan. 29, 2019)); and has chosen not to respond to the present Complaint. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Panel determines that fairness and justice to both parties, and due expedition, are best satisfied by conducting the remainder of the proceedings in English. See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Yoshihiro Nakazawa, FA 1736477 (Forum July 21, 2017); see also UBS AG v. ratzel laura, FA 1735687 (Forum July 14, 2017).
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it uses its mark BRIDGEWATER in connection with financial services. Complainant has rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark based on registration in the United States in 2000.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar its BRIDGEWATER mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic or descriptive term “associates” and the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.wang.” Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the BRIDGEWATER mark in any manner. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent has offered related domain names for sale and likely also intends to offer the disputed domain name for sale. Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name to divert users away from Complainant’s own website. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent likely intends to sell the disputed domain name. Respondent has been a respondent to Complainant in prior UDRP proceedings, which establishes a pattern of bad faith registration. Respondent is passively holding the confusingly similar disputed domain name in an effort to divert internet users and thereby disrupt Complainant’s business by causing initial interest confusion. Respondent engaged in opportunistic bad faith registration as it registered the disputed domain name shortly after Complainant made an offer to purchase similar domain names. Further, Respondent had at least constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BRIDGESTONE mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark BRIDGEWATER and uses it to market financial services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark dates back to 2000.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2018.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name is not being used. Respondent registered related domain names, offered them for sale, and was found to have registered and used them in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term “associates” and the gTLD “.wang.” The addition of generic and/or descriptive terms and/or a gTLD to a complainant’s mark when registering a disputed domain name is not sufficient to overcome a confusingly similar analysis per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the BRIDGEWATER mark in any way Complainant. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the owner of the disputed domain name as “Wang Hai Bo.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant provides screenshots of the website associated with the disputed domain name showing that it is not being used. Passive holding of a disputed domain name is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) (“Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). In addition, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
Indeed, Respondent displays a pattern of bad faith registration of domain names containing Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER marks. Specifically, Respondent has been the party to an adverse UDRP decision in which the Panel transferred several domain names from Respondent to Complainant. See Bridgewater Associates, LP v. wang hai bo, FA1812001820728 (Forum Jan. 29, 2019). Registration of multiple domain names containing a complainant’s mark, as well as prior adverse UDRP decisions, can substantiate an argument that a respondent registered and uses a disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See NIKE, Inc., and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Emile Boulanger, FA 1732458 (Forum July 3, 2017) (finding that registration of several infringing domain names in a case satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) (“The record contains evidence of Respondents previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
The disputed domain name is not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”
As already noted, Respondent had previously registered confusingly similar domain names and offered them for sale to Complainant for a sum well in excess of out-of-pocket-costs. That was found to constitute bad faith use of those domain names.
Under the circumstances, it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy. See Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) (“Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy”); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant’s well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int’l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) (“The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith”).
There has been no response to the Complaint. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain name is not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: Respondent had corresponded with Complainant (through its agent) regarding the sale of related domain names. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bridgewaterassociates.wang> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: May 21, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page