National Arbitration Forum
DECISION
Bloomberg Finance L.P. v.
Bloomberg Holding
Claim Number: FA0804001176571
PARTIES
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Fara
Sunderji, of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bloombergbrokers.com>, registered
with Godaddy.com,
Inc.
PANEL
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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <bloombergbrokers.com> domain name is
registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and
that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com,
Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, 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 postmaster@bloombergbrokers.com 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
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
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
The Complainant
is the holder of the domain name registrations <bloomberg.com> (in use since 1993), <bloomberg.net>, and
<bloomberg.org>, 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
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
The Complainant informs
that the Respondent or its predecessor in interest
registered the disputed domain name on August 29, 2007.
The Complainant argues
that <bloombergbrokers.com> 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 <bloombergbrokers.com>,
namely
EGYWEB, an entity based in
Copies of the letter were also sent to an e-mail
address and a
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 <bloombergbrokers.com>. Respondent express its eagerness to assist in any way to solve the
problem with the domain name and company name.
FINDINGS
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.”).
DECISION
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 <bloombergbrokers.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
P-E H
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