National Arbitration Forum




Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Bloomberg Holding

Claim Number: FA0804001176571



Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Fara Sunderji, of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, USA.  Respondent is Bloomberg Holding (“Respondent”), Delaware, USA.




The domain name at issue is <>, registered with, Inc.



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 Panelist in this proceeding.


P-E H Petter Rindforth as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on April 7, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 8, 2008.


On April 7, 2008,, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <> domain name is registered with, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name., Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).


On April 9, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 29, 2008 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to by e-mail.


A timely Response was received in electronic format only on April 29, 2008, but determined to be deficient because a hard copy was not received by the response deadline.


On May 2, 2008, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Mr. P-E H Petter Rindforth as Panelist.



Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A. Complainant

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks for BLOOMBERG, such as Nos.  724 377, 724 378 B, 1 285 577, 1 285 576, 1 285 575 and 1 285 574 in India, No. 2 770 119 in Spain and Nos. 476 993, 785 615 and 671 875 in Chile (copies of Certificates of Registration provided as Exhibit A of the Complaint).  In addition, Bloomberg Finance One L.P., a subsidiary of the Complainant, has obtained a number of registrations for BLOOMBERG in the United States (listed in Exhibit B), and the Complainant and its subsidiaries holds registrations for mark containing the word BLOOMBERG in around 100 countries in the world.


The Complainant is the holder of the domain name registrations <> (in use since 1993), <>, and <>, and together with its affiliated companies Complainant holds over 1 000 other domain name registrations incorporating the word Bloomberg or similar. The Bloomberg trade name has been in continuous use in the United States since 1986.


According to the Complainant, Bloomberg has become one of the largest providers of worldwide financial news and information and related goods and services, and is recognized and trusted worldwide as a leading financial information and analysis source. The Complainant is headquartered in New York, employs more than 10,000 people in over 126 offices around the world, including 2000 reporters in 130 news bureaus worldwide. BLOOMBERG is the 19th most well-known mark in the world, according to the magazine Trademark World.


The Complainant informs that the Respondent or its predecessor in interest registered the disputed domain name on August 29, 2007.


The Complainant argues that <> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, as it fully incorporates the mark BLOOMBERG with the generic addition “brokers.”


The Complainant states that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, as Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use Complainant's trademarks.


Complainant sent a cease and desist letter on March 5, 2008 to the - by that date - listed holder of <>, namely EGYWEB, an entity based in Cairo, Egypt. The letter was returned by FedEx as the listed address was non-existent.

Copies of the letter were also sent to an e-mail address and a Delaware address listed on the web page for the disputed domain name. The latter address turned out to be the one for Bloomberg Brokers, registered as the holder of <> as of March 13, 2008.


A web page linked by the "Legal Information" hyperlink on Respondent's web site states that "Bloomberg Brokers mark is registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office under the file number 4442836.” No such trademark exist, the said number is the state number for Bloomberg Brokers. The content of the website linked to the disputed domain name has not changed since it was registered in the name of EGYWEB.


Finally, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is registered and used in bad faith, that the Respondent has taken unfair advantage of the well known trademark BLOOMBERG, used confusing content on the related web site and displayed false and deliberately misleading information regarding its ownership of federal trademark rights in the mark BLOOMBERG BROKERS.


B. Respondent

Respondent does not contest any of Complainant’s allegations regarding the disputed domain name. Respondent asserts that it has been deceived by a former business partner and that Respondent has no interest in keeping the company name Bloomberg Brokers or the domain name <>. Respondent express its eagerness to assist in any way to solve the problem with the domain name and company name.



According to Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “a Panel shall 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.”


In this case, Respondent does not contest Complainant’s request that the disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. In fact, Respondent claims that it has nothing to do with the domain name as it was registered by a former business associate without Respondent’s knowledge or permission.



Therefore, under these special circumstances, this Panel decides to forego the traditional UDRP analysis, not to make any further findings or discussion, and order the immediate transfer of the disputed domain name.  See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).




Giving the special circumstances in this case, and the fact that Respondent does not contest the transfer of the domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.





P-E H Petter Rindforth, Panelist
Dated: May 16, 2008







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum