Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The registered domain name <bloomberg.lawyer> fully incorporates the word mark BLOOMBERG for which Complainant holds a valid national registration verified by TMCH. It is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity. Thus .lawyer” is of no consequence here. Respectively, the Examiner finds that the domain names <bloomberg.lawyer> is identical to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark under URS 1.2.6.1. (i).

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Examiner determines that the Respondent is not commonly known by the BLOOMBERG name and he has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark in a domain name or otherwise. The domain name is neither generic nor descriptive. No evidence has been presented that before notice to Respondent of this dispute, Respondent had been using or was making demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in issue in connection with any type of bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent’s reference to third parties’ rights in the Blooomberg and the reference to the 15 year Respondent’s experience in online space and e-commerce do not present a rationale for a legitimate commercial use of the disputed domain name in this case. Thus, Respondent’s explanation as to why it selected the disputed domain name do not convince this Examiner by clear and convincing evidence that the Registrant has legitimate right or interest to the domain name or that the domain is fairly used. The disputed domain name resolves to the parking page utilizing the standard parking page design with PPC links published on it. Thus, Respondent is using the domain name to redirect to the external websites. Such use which diverts Internet users who are looking for Complainant’s products / services on the Internet to external websites is not a legitimate, bona fide use and does not confer legitimate interests in the domain name <bloomberg.lawyer>. The Examiner also notes that such redirection cannot support noncommercial or fair use of the domain name either. The passive holding of a domain does not generate any rights or legitimate interest to a domain name. Thus, the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <bloomberg.lawyer> under URS 1.2.6.2.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the domain names in bad faith, for the purpose of selling them to Complainant for an amount in excess of its out of pocket expenses that indicates bad faith. The Parties are reminded that the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to any of the elements of the claim. Arts. 8.2-8.3. In light of that, the Examiner finds that the Complainant failed to establish that Respondent 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, as Complainant did not overcome the evidentiary burden for finding of bad faith registration under URS 1.2.6.3.(a). At the same time, the Examiner finds that the following infers bad faith registration and use in this case. Complainant registered the <bloomberg.com> domain name in September 1993 that can be easily verified in WHOIS, and has used this domain continuously since then. The domain name <bloomberg.lawyer> was registered on December 30, 2014, i.e. more than two decades after the Complainant’s domain was registered and long after the first use of the Bloomberg mark in commerce. Complainant also contends that in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's BLOOMBERG mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. Respondent claims that he has extensive experience and expertise in the online space and e-commerce. Thus, it may be stated that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s mark Bloomberg and its rights therein at the time the Respondent registered the domain name in issue which may serve as the evidence of the bad faith. As the Examiner previously determined that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark and the relevant trademark is most commonly associated with Complainant, the Examiner finds that Respondent is using the domain name <bloomberg.lawyer> in bad faith by providing “payperclick” links to other third party sites to generate “payperclick” revenue from internet traffic that visits a webpage to which a domain name resolves wrongfully misappropriating Complainant’s mark’s goodwill. Thus, the Examiner finds the domain name < bloomberg.lawyer> which is used to deceive Internet users into viewing external websites of non-related operators to be misleading that supports finding of bad faith registration under URS 1.2.6.3.(d).

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:

1. bloomberg.lawyer