URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Privacy Protection
Claim Number: FA2109001967092
DOMAIN NAME
<bloomberg.bar>
PARTIES
Complainant: Bloomberg Finance L.P. Melonie Callender of New York, NY, United States of America | |
Respondent: Privacy Protection Privacy Protection of Chicago, IL, US | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Punto 2012 Sociedad Anonima Promotora de Inversion de Capital Variable | |
Registrars: Sav.com, LLC |
EXAMINER
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding. | |
Richard W. Hill, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: September 30, 2021 | |
Commencement: September 30, 2021 | |
Default Date: October 15, 2021 | |
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules"). |
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration. |
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Clear and convincing evidence. |
FINDINGS and DISCUSSION
Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment] |
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has rights in the mark BLOOMBERG through its registration in the United States in 2008. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety, merely adding the gTDL ".bar". Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant had not licensed or otherwise authorized Complainant to use its mark. The registrant of the disputed domain name is "Privacy Protection" and nothing in the record indicates that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The resolving website offers the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket-costs. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent does not have legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The resolving website offers the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket-costs. This constitutes bad faith registration and use. FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds as follows:
DETERMINATION
After reviewing the parties submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant
has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing
evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for
the duration of the registration:
|
Richard W. Hill Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page