Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Michel Cusin / CSI
Claim Number: FA1703001721398
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by William M. Ried of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is Michel Cusin / CSI (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <newsbloomberg.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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 13, 2017; the Forum received payment on March 13, 2017.
On March 13, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <newsbloomberg.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 15, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 4, 2017 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@newsbloomberg.com. Also on March 15, 2017, 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 April 13, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Since the inception of the business in 1981, and the adoption of the "Bloomberg" name in 1987, BLOOMBERG has become one of the largest providers of global financial news and data and related goods and services and is recognized and trusted worldwide as a leading source of financial information and analysis.
Complainant registered its BLOOMBERG mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,736,744, registered Sept. 15, 2003), and has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s <newsbloomberg.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it merely adds the term “news” before the BLOOMBERG mark and appends the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its BLOOMBERG mark in any fashion and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent’s inactive use of the domain name’s resolving website cannot be construed as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
Respondent has registered and is using the <newsbloomberg.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLOOMBERG mark due to the fame of the mark and registered the disputed domain name under the disguise of a privacy service. Furthermore, Respondent has failed to make an active use of the resolving webpage.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, in several emails to the dispute resolution provider Respondent unequivocally offered to transfer the at-issue domain name to Complainant.
Complainant has trademark rights in the BLOOMBERG mark.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its BLOOMBERG trademark.
Respondent consents to having the at-issue domain name transferred to Complainant.
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 (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.”).
Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer
As mentioned above, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 15(a) of the Rules thus permits a panel to grant a complainant’s requested relief without deference to Policy ¶¶4(a)ii or 4(a)iii when a respondent consents to such relief. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (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 (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.”)
In the instant case there is a clear indication that Respondent consents to transferring the at-issue domain name to Complainant. In several emails to the FORUM Respondent states that it wants to transfer the domain name to Complainant. However, Respondent could not affect the domain name’s transfer since the <newsbloomberg.com> domain name was locked by the registrar on account of the instant proceedings. Therefore, the Panel follows its rationale set out in Homer TLC, Inc. v. Jacek Woloszuk, FA613637 (Forum May 17, 2015), as well as in other similarly reasoned decisions where the respondent likewise agreed to transfer the at-issue domain name(s) to the complainant.
As more fully discussed in the cases referenced above, as a necessary prerequisite to Complainant obtaining the requested relief, even where Respondent consents to such relief, Complainant must nonetheless demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark that is confusingly similar or identical to the at-issue domain name. Complainant establishes its right in the BLOOMBERG mark through its registration of such mark with USPTO trademark. See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO). Furthermore the at-issue <newsbloomberg.com> domain name incorporates Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, prefixed the generic terms “news” and concluding with the top level domain name, “.com”. The term “news” suggests Complainant’s business as a global provider of financial news and thereby adds to any confusion between Complainant’s mark and Respondent’s domain name. The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant’s trademark are thus insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <newsbloomberg.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that by adding the term “security” to the complainant’s VANCE mark, which described the complainant’s business, the respondent “very significantly increased” the likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark); see also Ticketmaster Corp. v. Kumar, FA 744436 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding that the <indiaticketmaster.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s TICKETMASTER mark); see also, Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”).
In light of the foregoing, Respondent’s express consent-to-transfer the at-issue domain name to Complainant compels the Panel to order that the <newsbloomberg.com> domain name be transferred as requested. Furthermore, the Panel has no reason to provide further analysis under Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) and/or 4(a)(iii) in support of its decision.
Having established that Respondent agrees to allow the domain name to be transferred to Complainant, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <newsbloomberg.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 13, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page