Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Raul Nocete / Nothing
Claim Number: FA1603001663760
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by William M. Ried of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is Raul Nocete / Nothing (“Respondent”), Illinois, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bloomberglibrary.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 3, 2016; the Forum received payment on March 3, 2016.
On March 3, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bloomberglibrary.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 4, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 2016 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@bloomberglibrary.com. Also on March 4, 2016, the 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, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant uses the BLOOMBERG mark in connection with its business as one of the largest providers of global financial news and data and related goods and services. Complainant owns the BLOOMBERG mark through numerous trademark registrations, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,736,744, Registered July 15, 2003). The <bloomberglibrary.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark, because it contains the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “library” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <bloomberglibrary.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, as evidenced by the available WHOIS information for the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, the disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage. Further, Respondent has offered to sell the domain name to Complainant in correspondence between the parties.
Respondent has registered and is using the <bloomberglibrary.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant. Further, due to Complainant’s strong reputation and high-profile presence in the financial and media sectors, coupled with its continuous use of the BLOOMBERG mark since as early as 1993, Respondent must have had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant uses the BLOOMBERG mark in connection with its business as one of the largest providers of global financial news and data and related goods and services. Complainant owns the BLOOMBERG mark through numerous trademark registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,736,744, Registered July 15, 2003). The <bloomberglibrary.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark.
Respondent registered the <bloomberglibrary.com domain name on February 16, 2016. Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the bloomberglibrary.com domain name. Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage. Respondent has offered to sell the domain name to Complainant. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant rights in the BLOOMBERG mark when registering the <bloomberglibrary.com domain name.
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 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.
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 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.”).
Complainant owns rights in the BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through numerous trademark registrations, including the USPTO. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (determining that the complainant’s trademark registrations with the USPTO for the CHEAPTICKETS and CHEAPTICKETS.COM marks were adequate to establish its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <bloomberglibrary.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), because it contains the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “library” and the gTLD “.com.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <bloomberglibrary.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information lists “Raul Nocete / Nothing” as registrant of the domain name. See 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).
Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <bloomberglibrary.com> domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage containing unrelated hyperlinks. Use of a disputed domain name to host hyperlinks unrelated to Complainant’s business shows a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names). Further, Respondent has offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant. An offer to sell a disputed domain name to a complainant shows a lack of rights or legitimate interest. See Trice v. Dill, FA 1369280 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 10, 2011) (“Based on the evidence in the record, the Panel finds that Respondent’s offer to lease and then sell the<clearbox.com> domain name to Complainant indicates a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Respondent has registered and is using the <bloomberglibrary.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant which is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Pocatello Idaho Auditorium Dist. v. CES Mktg. Group, Inc., FA 103186 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2002) ("[w]hat makes an offer to sell a domain [name] bad faith is some accompanying evidence that the domain name was registered because of its value that is in some way dependent on the trademark of another, and then an offer to sell it to the trademark owner or a competitor of the trademark owner").
Use of the <bloomberglibrary.com> domain name to resolve to a parked webpage containing unrelated hyperlinks is evidence of bad faith.
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLOOMBERG mark when registering the <bloomberglibrary.com> domain name which is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
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 <bloomberglibrary.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: April 9, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page