Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al.
Claim Number: FA1707001742021
Complainant: Bloomberg Finance L.P. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, International, PA.
Respondent Representative: WHOISGUARD PROTECTED
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Eleni Lappa, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: July 28, 2017
Commencement: July 31, 2017
Default Date: August 15, 2017
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.
Complainant submitted evidence of prior trademark registration rights for its trademark BLOOMBERG which also comprises Complainant’s company name.
Respondent submitted no evidence of legitimate rights or interests for the name BLOOMBERG.
URS 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.
1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.1]: for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use
2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.2]
3. The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3]
With regard to URS 1.2.6.1:
With regard to URS 1.2.6.2:
Respondent has submitted no evidence of legitimate rights or interests related to the domain name under review. Such legitimate interests or rights would be, trademark applications or registrations, rights acquired through evidence of prior significant use in the market, company names, other domain names, etc. Therefore the requirement of URS 1.2.6.2 is fulfilled.
With regard to URS 1.2.6.3
In order to substantiate the element of bad faith, the Rules state the following, non-exclusive list of circumstances in an effort to assist the determination of the Examiner in relation to bad faith, that may nonetheless determine it exists on the basis of other grounds:
1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A non-exclusive list of circumstances that demonstrate bad faith registration and use by the Registrant include:
a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.
Respondent was currently using the Bloomberg name to divert traffic to a website featuring news articles and advertising for pornography. Such use, as per the above, constitutes bad faith use of the domain name at issue.
Therefore the requirement of URS 1.2.6.3 is fulfilled.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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: <bloombergtoday.top>
Eleni Lappa, Examiner
Dated: August 15, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page