Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. shimei wang et al.

Claim Number: FA1609001696094






Complainant: Bloomberg Finance L.P. of New York, New York, United States of America.


Respondent: shimei wang of Jinan, Shandong Province, People’s Republic of China.


世 梅 王 of 山东省济南市, China.


N/A of jinan, Shandong, China.



Registries: GMO Registry, Inc.

Registrars: Go Canada Domains, LLC



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 Examiner in this proceeding.


David L. Kreider Esq., as Examiner.



Complainant submitted: September 29, 2016

Commencement: September 30, 2016     

Response Date: October 2, 2016


Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").




Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.



Clear and convincing evidence.




As required by Rule 9 (c), it is noted that the Examiner is fluent in English and in the language of the Response, which is Mandarin Chinese.  The Examiner has elected to issue this determination in the English language.


URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended: that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark: (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed; and that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain

name; and that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.


A WHOIS search discloses that the Respondent registered the domain name <bloomberg.shop> on September 26, 2016.  The Examiner finds that the registered domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered trademark “Bloomberg”, which was registered in the Principle Register of the USPTO on May 20, 2008 and is in current use.  The Complainant’s trademark was submitted to and validated by ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) on or before May 14, 2013.


Complainant has established, prima facie, that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.  The burden of proof on this element having thus shifted to the Respondent, the Examiner finds that the Respondent’s allegations, which may be summarized as “first in time makes first in right”, fall far short of meeting Respondent’s burden of establishing a legitimate right or interest in the domain name.


The Examiner finds that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.  Although not alleged by the Complainant, the Respondent would have been notified by the TMCH of Complainant’s registered trademark when it sought to register the infringing domain name, yet the Respondent registered the domain name nonetheless, in disregard of such notice.  Even absent such notice from the TMCH, it is inconceivable that Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant’s distinctive and world-renowned mark, which is synonymous with financial news, media and information services, before registering the domain name, unless the Respondent was “willfully blind”.  The Complainant’s evidence demonstrates that the domain name is currently parked with Go Daddy to provide advertising links to third parties websites and is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services by the Respondent. 


As a further demonstration of the Respondent’s bad faith, the Complainant argues that, upon receiving a “cease and desist” letter from the Complainant, the Respondent demanded payment of an undisclosed sum of money in exchange for the transfer of the domain.  It is noted that the Complainant has provided no evidence, such as copies of emails or correspondence with the Respondent, and has alleged no additional facts to support its argument on this issue.  This factor standing alone is not fatal to Complainant’s case.                




The Complaint was not brought in an abuse of this proceeding and contains no material falsehoods.  The Respondent’s allegations, which may be summarized as “first in time makes first in right”, are misplaced.  



After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard





of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.





David L. Kreider Esq., Examiner

Dated:  October 03, 2016




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page