Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / China Capital Investments Limited
Claim Number: FA1706001734788
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Amin Kassam of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / China Capital Investments Limited (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bloombergd.com> (‘the Domain Name’) registered with GoDaddy.com, 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 Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs IP as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 6, 2017; the Forum received payment on June 6, 2017.
On June 7, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bloombergd.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 June 7, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 27, 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@bloombergd.com. Also on June 7, 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 June 28, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs IP 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’s submissions can be summarised as follows:
Complainant owns many registered trade marks consisting of or containing BLOOMBERG and/or BLOOMBERG.COM across the world including the United States. It is the owner of many domain names containing the BLOOMBERG mark including bloomberg.com. Complainant’s corporate group, offering global financial news and data and related goods and services, has operated under the BLOOMBERG name in the USA and around the world since as early as 1987.
The Domain Name, registered in 2016, pointing to a non functioning web site, is confusingly similar to the BLOOMBERG mark, fully incorporating it and adding only the letter ‘d.
Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use Complainant’s marks. There is no suggestion Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or intends to offer a non commercial fair use. Since there is no use this cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services.
Complainant’s mark is well known and the Domain Name would not have been selected without knowing its reputation.
Respondent did not answer a cease and desist letter from Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns many registered trade marks consisting of or containing BLOOMBERG and/or BLOOMBERG.COM across the world including the United States. It is the owner of many domain names containing the BLOOMBERG mark including Bloomberg.com. Complainant’s corporate group offering global financial news and data and related goods and services has operated under the BLOOMBERG name in the USA and around the world since as early as 1987.
The Domain Name registered in 2016 points to an inactive site.
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 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.”).
The Domain Name consists of Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark (registered around the world, inter alia in the USA for news related services and used since at least 1987), the letter ‘d’and the gTLD.com. Panels have found that adding one letter to the end of a registered mark does not distinguish a domain name from that mark. See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v Antonio Teggi, FA 1626528 (Forum Aug 3, 2015)(finding that twitcch.tv is confusingly similar to the TWITCH TV trade mark because the domain name consisted of a common misspelling of the mark by merely adding the letter ‘c’).
The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the BLOOMBERG mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to 's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose to a mark in which has rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest Respondent is, in fact. commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that had not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
There has been no use of the Domain Name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum April 20, 2005)(Where the panel found inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4 ( c ) (i).
As such the Panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing Complainant’s well known mark in what appears on the face of it to be a typosquatting registration
Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) ('registering a domain name which entirely incorporates a famous mark with additional letter (s) in the hope that Internet users will mistype Complainant’s mark and be taken to Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith).
As such, the Panel holds that has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bloombergd.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page