Bridgewater Associates, LP v. wang hai bo
Claim Number: FA1812001820728
Complainant is Bridgewater Associates, LP ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is wang hai bo ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bridgewaterassociate.com>, <bridgewaterassociates.club>, <bridgewaterassociates.top>, and <bridgewaterassociates.vip> registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd; and <bridgewaterassociates.cc>, registered with Bizcn.com, Inc.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 12, 2018; the Forum received payment on December 12, 2018.
On December 13, 2018 eName Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <bridgewaterassociate.com>, <bridgewaterassociates.club>, <bridgewaterassociates.top>, and <bridgewaterassociates.vip> domain names are registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. On December 14, 2018 Bizcn.com, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <bridgewaterassociates.cc> domain name is registered with Bizcn.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eName Technology Co., Ltd. and Bizcn.com, Inc. have verified that Respondent is bound by the eName Technology Co., Ltd. and Bizcn.com, Inc. registration agreements and have thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On December 14, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 3, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bridgewaterassociate.com, postmaster@bridgewaterassociates.club, postmaster@bridgewaterassociates.top, postmaster@bridgewaterassociates.vip, and postmaster@bridgewaterassociates.cc. Also on December 14, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 January 7, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
The Panel entered a Procedural Order on January 14, 2019, requesting the parties to submit evidence relating to Complainant’s offer to purchase a domain name from Respondent and the counter-offers made by Respondent. Responsive material was received from Complainant on January 21, 2019.
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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a private equity investment firm founded that manages over U.S. $160 billion in global investments. Complainant states that it is the world's largest hedge fund. Complainant has used BRIDGEWATER and related marks including BRIDGEWATER ASSOCIATES to identify itself and its services since it was founded in 1975, and owns various trademark registrations for these marks in the United States, the European Union, and China, among other jurisdictions.
Complainant opened offices in China in 2016. In 2017, Respondent registered the domain names <bridgewaterassociates.cn> and <bridgewaterassociates.com.cn>, and parked them and offered them for sale. Complainant contacted Respondent and made a nominal offer to purchase these domain names. Respondent replied, offering to sell one of the domain names to Complainant for $3,500 and then both for $9,000. Shortly thereafter, Respondent registered two more ".cn" domain names, <bridgewaterassociate.cn> and <bridgewaterassociate.com.cn>, along with the five domain names that are the subject of this proceeding, <bridgewaterassociate.com>, <bridgewaterassociates.club>, <bridgewaterassociates.top>, <bridgewaterassociates.vip>, and <bridgewaterassociates.cc>. The five disputed domain names do not resolve to websites; Complainant asserts that Respondent registered these domain names in the hopes of selling them to Complainant along with the ".cn" domain names.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain names <bridgewaterassociate.com>, <bridgewaterassociates.club>, <bridgewaterassociates.top>, <bridgewaterassociates.vip>, and <bridgewaterassociates.cc> are all identical or confusingly similar to its BRIDGEWATER and BRIDGEWATER ASSOCIATES marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
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 Management, 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.").
The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese. Rule 11(a) provides that the language of this administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise. Complainant requests that the proceeding be conducted in English, noting that the disputed domain names are all composed of English-language words and correspond to the name of a U.S.-based firm. In addition, two other similar domain names previously registered by Respondent, <bridgewaterassociates.cn> and <bridgewaterassociates.com.cn>, both resolve to websites containing text in both Chinese and English (e.g., "This domain is for sale."; "If you would like to purchase this domain, please click here to make an offer.). Finally, the Written Notice of the Complaint was served upon Respondent in both English and Chinese, and Respondent has made no objection to Complainant's request that the proceeding be conducted in English.
The Complaint includes the following description of Complainant’s effort to purchase domain names from Respondent:
Bridgewater Associates, through a representative, made a nominal offer to purchase one of these original domain names from Respondent in early July 2018. Respondent offered to sell one domain originally for $3,500 U.S. and then increased its offer to $9,000 U.S. for both domain names, claiming an undisclosed third party had offered $15,000 U.S. to purchase both domain names.
Complainant does not identify the language or languages in which these communications took place. The Panel therefore entered a Procedural Order requesting the Parties to provide documentary evidence relating to these communications. In response thereto, Complainant provided redacted copies of email correspondence between what appears to be a person acting on Complainant’s behalf and a domain name broker affiliated with Respondent’s registrar and presumably acting for Respondent. The text of these email messages is in English.
Under the circumstances, the Panel finds it likely that Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language, has received adequate notice of this proceeding, and has chosen not to participate. The Panel sees no reason to require Complainant to bear the burden and expense of arranging for a Chinese translation that is likely unnecessary to afford proper notice to Respondent, and that in any event Respondent is likely to ignore. The Panel decides that English shall be the language of this proceeding.
The disputed domain names <bridgewaterassociate.com>, <bridgewaterassociates.club>, <bridgewaterassociates.top>, <bridgewaterassociates.vip>, and <bridgewaterassociates.cc> all correspond to Complainant's registered BRIDGEWATER ASSOCIATES trademark (omitting the space and, in one instance, the terminal "s"), appending ".com" or another top-level domain. Each of them is therefore identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark for purposes of the Policy. See, e.g., Bridgewater Associates, Inc. v. Speedy Web, D2006-0835 (WIPO Aug. 16, 2006) (finding <bridgewaterassociates.com> identical to BRIDGEWATER ASSOCIATES); L'Oréal & Biotherm v. Li Hai Lu, D2016-0631 (WIPO May 16, 2016) (finding <lorealcosmetics.club> confusingly similar to L'ORÉAL).The Panel so finds.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the names. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "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 [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name."
Based upon the available evidence, the Panel is persuaded that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in order to sell them to Complainant at a profit, and is maintaining the registrations for that purpose. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy with respect to each of the disputed domain names, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bridgewaterassociate.com>, <bridgewaterassociates.club>, <bridgewaterassociates.top>, <bridgewaterassociates.vip>, and <bridgewaterassociates.cc> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: January 29, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page