Bridgewater Associates, LP v. guo tao
Claim Number: FA2203001986472
Complainant is Bridgewater Associates, LP (“Complainant”), United States of America (“United States”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., United States. Respondent is guo tao (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bridgewatercion.com> (the “disputed domain name”), registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) (the “Registrar”).
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 1, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 1, 2022. The Complaint was received in English and Chinese.
On March 3, 2022, the Registrar confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bridgewatercion.com> disputed 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. The Registrar 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 March 3, 2022, the Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 23, 2022 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@bridgewatercion.com. Also on March 3, 2022, the Chinese and English language 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 March 28, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
A. Complainant
Founded by now-billionaire Ray Dalio in 1975, Complainant is a renowned investment management firm that manages hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of global investments for a wide variety of clients worldwide. As a result of such long‐term and widespread use and promotion, the Complainant’s trademarks have become well known among consumers and have acquired considerable goodwill.
Complainant contends that it has rights in the BRIDGEWATER trademark based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,395,503, registered on October 17, 2000), its registrations in the European Union, United Kingdom, and China (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “BRIDGEWATER Mark”). Complainant also contends that Respondent’s <bridgewatercion.com> disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER Mark since it incorporates the entire mark and simply adds the term “cion” (a misspelling of “coin”), and is followed by the “.com” generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) to form the disputed domain name.
Complainant further claims that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since the disputed domain name resolves to a phony website purportedly offering competing financial services.
Complainant owns the domain name <bridgewater.com> and operates a website to which the domain name resolves at “www.bridgewater.com”, which site provides information about Complainant and the financial services it offers under its BRIDGEWATER Mark.
As mentioned above, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that competes with Complainant and that offers financial services in the form of cryptocurrency trading services. Complainant’s counsel sent a demand letter dated February 15, 2022 to Respondent via the email address listed on Respondent’s website, although it bounced back as undeliverable.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BRIDGEWATER Mark based on its trademark registrations with the USPTO and other jurisdictions worldwide. Registration with various trademark offices worldwide is sufficient to establish rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In addition, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER Mark, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name 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 disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(3) the disputed 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BRIDGEWATER Mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO, as well as the trademark offices of the European Union, United Kingdom, and China, where Respondent allegedly resides. Registration of a trademark with multiple trademark offices worldwide is sufficient to establish rights in a mark. See Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. YINGFENG WANG, FA 1568531 (Forum Aug. 21, 2014) (“Complainant has rights in the ALIBABA mark under the Policy through registration with trademark authorities in numerous countries around the world.”). In addition, registration of a mark with the USPTO confers upon a complainant trademark rights for purposes of the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Ecolab USA Inc. v. (name redacted), FA 2003001888902 (Forum Apr. 20, 2020) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for ECOLAB is sufficient to demonstrate its rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, in sum, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BRIDGEWATER Mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Here, the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the BRIDGEWATER Mark, adds the term “cion” (a likely misspelling of the word “coin”[i]), followed by the “.com” gTLD to form the disputed domain name. Registration of a domain name that substitutes one letter for another in a trademark (especially when the two letters are adjacent on a keyboard) does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Staples, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Shield Services, FA 1617690 (Forum June 5, 2015) (changing a single letter is a minor enough change to support a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1835356 (Forum Apr. 19, 2019) (“Complainant notes that the term ‘baking’ in the [disputed] domain name is a misspelled version of the term “banking” which describes Complainant’s services. The Panel therefore finds that the <tdbankonlinebaking.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the TD BANK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
In addition, adding a gTLD to a complainant’s mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the addition of a gTLD to a disputed domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Respondent misspells Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER Mark by switching the letters “o” and “i” in “coin” to create “cion”. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BRIDGEWATER Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Under the Policy, Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
In this case, Respondent did not carry its burden to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it did not submit a response to the Complaint, but given the facts of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent would have been hard pressed to furnish availing arguments had it chosen to respond. In support, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or any name similar to it, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its BRIDGEWATER Mark in the disputed domain name.
Additionally, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the domain to purportedly offer competing financial services. Use of a disputed domain name to offer services or goods that compete with those offered by a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum Feb. 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
Moreover, the use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a phony or fraudulent website does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Goodwin Procter LLP v. GAYLE FANDETTI, FA 1738231 (Forum Aug. 8, 2017) (“[T]he Domain Name has been used in an attempted fraud. As such it cannot have been registered for a legitimate purpose.”). Here, Complainant provides screenshots showing Respondent offers competing financial services on the resolving website for the disputed domain name and Complainant contends that these services are not genuine.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established by Complainant.
This Panel finds that, based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy as described below.
First, the use of a disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent’s website or online location by creating a likelihood of confusion or a false association with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website or online location demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006).
Second, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent engaged in typosquatting. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018) (“Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.”). Here, Respondent engaged in typosquatting by switching the letters “o” and “i” in the word “coin”, resulting in “cion”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Third, the Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the resolving website of the disputed domain name to purportedly offer competing financial services. Using a disputed domain name to offer services that compete with those offered by a complainant is evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1506001623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”).
Finally, the fame of the BRIDGEWATER Mark, which was used and registered by Complainant far in advance of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, renders it wholly implausible that Respondent created the disputed domain name independently. Moreover, where a disputed domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known name, product or service, its use by someone with no connection to the name, product or service indicates opportunistic bad faith. The choice of the misspelled term “cion” instead of “coin” is far from coincidental, but further reinforces the Panel’s belief that Respondent had the Complainant in mind when registering the Disputed Domain Name and intentionally chose the term to target the Complainant given its activity in the financial services sector, as well as Respondent’s own cryptocurrency services.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BRIDGEWATER Mark, and this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). It therefore strains credulity to believe that Respondent had not known of the Complainant or its BRIDGEWATER Mark when registering the disputed domain name. Thus, as here, prior knowledge of a complainant’s trademarks before registering a domain name is sufficient to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (finding actual knowledge due to the domain name chosen and the use made of it).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established by Complainant.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bridgewatercion.com> disputed domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Lynda M. Braun, Panelist
Dated: April 4, 2022
[i] This misspelling is an example of typosquatting, a situation in which a disputed domain name includes a misspelled term.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page