Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Bloobberg United c/o Essam Mahmoud
Claim Number: FA0806001203727
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 <bloombergunited.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.
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.
Louis E Condon as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On June 17, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 7, 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 email@example.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <bloombergunited.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bloombergunited.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <bloombergunited.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Since Complainant adopted the name BLOOMBERG in 1986, it has
become one of the largest providers of worldwide financial news and information
and related goods and services.
Complainant is headquartered in
domain name was registered on
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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
Complainant has registered the BLOOMBERG mark in numerous
jurisdictions worldwide, including with the GOI. The Panel finds Complainant’s registration of
the BLOOMBERG mark with the GOI sufficient to establish its rights in the mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v.
Bonds, FA 873143
domain name contains Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark in its entirety followed by
the generic word “united” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)
“.com.” Generally speaking, the addition
of a generic word does not distinguish a disputed domain name. See Arthur
Guinness Son & Co. (
The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has sufficiently met its burden of producing a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Therefore, it is Respondent’s responsibility to repudiate Complainant’s assertion and provide evidence that Respondent does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Towmaster, Inc. v. Hale, FA 973506 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 4, 2007) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Di Salvatore, D2006-1417 (WIPO Feb. 1, 2007) (“Proper analysis of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy shows that the burden of proof shifts from the Complainant to the Respondent once the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or interests in the domain names.”).
However, Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the
Complaint. Consequently, the Panel may
presume that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <bloombergunited.com> domain
name. It will nevertheless examine the
record in consideration of the factors cited under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its BLOOMBERG mark in any way. Additionally, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that Respondent is or ever was commonly known by the disputed domain name. Absent any additional evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Home v. Nguyen, FA 1045203 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel concludes that the scenarios listed under Policy ¶
4(b) are not exclusive, and that it may consider additional circumstances in
determining whether or not Respondent registered and is using the disputed
domain name in bad faith. See
Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
When a respondent fails to submit a response to a complaint, there is no assertion of Respondent’s good faith intent to use the disputed domain name. This in addition to the inactive holding of the disputed domain name should lead to the conclusion that a respondent has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Martineau, FA 95359 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000). Respondent has made no effort to respond to Complainant’s allegations, and likewise, the disputed domain name remains unutilized displaying only an “under construction” sign. Accordingly, the Panel finds this inactive use of the <bloombergunited.com> domain name to establish that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s inactive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith).
The Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bloombergunited.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Louis E. Condon Panelist
Dated: July 22, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum