URS FINAL DETERMINATION
Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. FBS INC / Whoisprotection.biz et al.
Claim Number: FA1804001781165
DOMAIN NAME
<bloomberghabertv.club>
PARTIES
Complainant: Bloomberg Finance L.P. Brendan T. Kehoe of New York, NY, United States of America | |
Respondent: SeoMerkezi Huseyin kaan yüksel Yuksel of istanbul, Turkey | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC | |
Registrars: FBS Inc. |
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. | |
Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: April 11, 2018 | |
Commencement: April 12, 2018 | |
Response Date: April 12, 2018 | |
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: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants. | ||
Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents. |
Findings of Fact: The Complainant stated that Bloomberg has a strong reputation and a high-profile presence in finance and media sectors, and is the subject of substantial consumer recognition and goodwill. The Complainant asserted that bloomberg.com domain name is registered in September 1993 and they have been using continuously since then. The Complainant stated that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered BLOOMBERG trademark before the USPTO with the number U.S. Reg. No. 3,4309,69. The Complainant claimed that the BLOOMBERG trademark is the sole distinctive character in the domain name and this situation constitutes a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant claimed that the respondent has no legitimate right or interest on the domain name and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. |
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.
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: Determined: Finding for Complainant It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is confusingly similar to the word mark BLOOMBERG for which the Complainant holds valid national registration and that is in current use. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent for use of the BLOOMBERG trademark. The Respondent did not submit any response or evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the BLOOMBERG trademark. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Given the well-known status of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent was clearly well aware of the Complainant and of its rights on the trademark when it registered the domain name. Besides, according the annex of the complaint, it is understood that the Respondent had an active usage under the disputed domain name. It is also obvious that he also accepted commercials (Ankara Can Nakliyat) for his website and this situation clearly shows his aim to register the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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:
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:
|
Ahmet Akguloglu
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page