Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Bloomberg Offshore Racing c/o Brian Allen
Claim Number: FA0912001297264
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Fara
S. Sunderji, of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <bloombergoffshoreracing.com>, registered with 1 & 1 Internet Ag.
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.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 2, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 3, 2009.
On December 4, 2009, 1 & 1 Internet Ag confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bloombergoffshoreracing.com> domain name is registered with 1 & 1 Internet Ag and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1 & 1 Internet Ag has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1 & 1 Internet Ag 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 December 7, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 28, 2009 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@bloombergoffshoreracing.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 5, 2010, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., as Panelist.
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 <bloombergoffshoreracing.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bloombergoffshoreracing.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <bloombergoffshoreracing.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Bloomberg
Finance L.P., holds several trademark registrations with the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the BLOOMBERG mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,736,744 issued July 15,
2003) in connection with financial information and analysis.
Respondent, Bloomberg Offshore Racing c/o Brian Allen, registered the <bloombergoffshoreracing.com> domain name on March 27, 2009. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers off-track betting services.
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 asserts rights in its BLOOMBERG mark through its
holding of several trademark registrations for the BLOOMBERG mark with the
USPTO (e.g.,
Reg. No. 2,736,744 issued July 15, 2003).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its BLOOMBERG
mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registration with the
USPTO. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan,
FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark
is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance
Complainant argues that
Respondent’s <bloombergoffshoreracing.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark because Respondent’s disputed domain name
incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entierety, adds the generic terms
“offshore” and “racing” and adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that the addition of the
generic terms “offshore” and “racing” creates a confusing similarity between
the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark. See
Arthur Guinness Son &
Co. (
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)
has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Based on the arguments made in the Complaint, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case in support of its contentions and Respondent has failed to submit a Response to these proceedings. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (finding that if the complainant satisfies its prima facie burden, “then the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”). Nevertheless, the Panel will examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor licensed or otherwise permitted to use the BLOOMBERG mark. Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Bloomberg Offshore Racing c/o Brian Allen.” Although Respondent appears to be commonly known by the disputed domain name from the WHOIS information, the Panel finds that without affirmative evidence of Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain name, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information because there was “no affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”); see also City News & Video v. Citynewsandvideo, FA 244789 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2004) (“Although Respondent’s WHOIS information lists its name as ‘citynewsandvideo,’ there is no evidence before the Panel to indicate that Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the disputed domain name <citynewsandvideo.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
Respondent’s disputed domain name was registered on March 27, 2009. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers off-track betting services. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent is attempting to profit from using Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name and attempting to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for Respondent’s personal financial gain. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name to attract Internet users and profit by creating a strong likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bloombergoffshoreracing.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr., Panelist
Dated: January 18, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum