URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Bloomberg L.P. v. Stephen Smith et al.
Claim Number: FA1710001751855
DOMAIN NAME
<bloombergbusinessweek.news>
PARTIES
Complainant: Bloomberg L.P. Amin Kassam of New York, NY, United States of America | |
Respondent: Stephen Smith of Oviedo, FL, US | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: United TLD Holdco Ltd. | |
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC |
EXAMINER
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. | |
Darryl C. Wilson, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: October 3, 2017 | |
Commencement: October 3, 2017 | |
Default Date: October 18, 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"). |
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration. |
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Clear and convincing evidence. |
FINDINGS and DISCUSSION
Procedural Findings: | ||
Multiple Complainants: N/A | ||
Multiple Respondents: N/A |
Findings of Fact: Complainant is the owner of the mark BLOOMBERG and related marks. Complainant’s marks are strong and have gained secondary meaning through their continuous use in connection with Complainant’s electronic trading, financial news, and information businesses. On its face the domain name is confusingly similar to the BLOOMBERG mark. The Domain Name fully incorporates the BLOOMBERG mark and adds the generic extension “.news” which, as a gTLD, is insufficient as a method of distinguishing the domain name form the mark of the owner. Respondent's choice of domain name is an unauthorized attempt to capitalize on the reputation of the BLOOMBERG mark. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the BLOOMBERG mark. There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent, as listed on the WHOIS record, is commonly known by the name “Bloomberg.” Moreover, since Respondent’s current and apparently only use of the Domain Name points to a website with links to third-party advertising sites, Respondent cannot claim a right or legitimate interest in the domain based on its use of the Domain Name or a corresponding name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods or services. |
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: Determined: Finding for Complainant The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark: that has been validated through court proceedings; [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark. No evidence suggest that the Respondent listed on the WHOIS record is commonly known by the name “Bloomberg.”
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith. 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. FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds as follows:
Complainant is the registered owner of the BLOOMBERG mark and related marks. Complainant's assertions were uncontested as Respondent did not answer the complaint or otherwise participate in the proceedings. No abuse or material falsehoods were asserted.
DETERMINATION
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 name(s) be SUSPENDED for
the duration of the registration:
|
Darryl C. Wilson Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page