Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant has established trademark rights in the word mark “Bloomberg” based on the US registration no. 3,430,969 of May 20, 2008, the status and confirmation of use in which are supported by a relevant record with the Clearinghouse, attached to the complaint. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the letter in its entirety. Adding an extension “.red” should be disregarded in this case as it is a technical requirement of registration. The domain name in questions is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark as it may lead Internet users to believe that the website is associated with Complainant in view of their reputation and goodwill related to the name “Bloomberg”.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant contends that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the BLOOMBERG mark or to register and use a domain name incorporating the BLOOMBERG mark. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent listed on the WHOIS record is commonly known by the name “Bloomberg.” Moreover, Respondent’s current and apparent only use of the disputed domain name is to re-direct to a website called Bloomberg Redaction in the Russian language, which primarily publishes news cannot be qualified as a bona fide offering of goods and/or services. In his Response, Respondent is attempting to explain his lack of understanding of the nature of this dispute stating «No one notified me that you want to register any document confirming my right. If this is true, then I am willing to give up the domain name applicant's favor”, thus implicitly recognizing that he has no rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Replying to the allegations of bad faith, Respondent notes “I did not mean anything bad when to register the name. The site, which is attached to a given domain is written to draw the attention of users that the resources are not part of or affiliated structure of the company Bloomberg (in Russian). It is important. No one notified me that my actions violate something, and the registration process is opened without any additional conditions. I am willing to give up the name in favor of the applicant - the company Bloomberg”. On one hand immediate consent to transfer the domain name to Complainant could cast doubt on the issue of bad faith. On the other hand, it should be noted that the allegation of Respondent that the contents of the website related to the domain name are presented in such a manner that users would clearly understand that it is not related to the Bloomberg company, does not hold true. The fact that the mentioned website named “Bloomberg redaction” presents news makes it very likely that users would be misled and believe that this news service is directly related to the Bloomberg company. Taking into account the fame and reputation associated with the subject trade mark, its owner’s extensive presence in the financial and, what is the most important, media sectors, as well as its substantial consumer recognition, particularly in view of long and extensive Internet presence worldwide, it is hard to believe that Respondent could have not known about the company Bloomberg and its activities. Previous Panels have often found bad faith in circumstances where it is unlikely that the registrant would have selected the Domain Name without knowing about the fame and reputation of the well-known trademark corresponding to the domain name in question. See. Harrods Limited v. Walter Trautner, WIPO Case no. D2001-1164 (“…Given the HARRODS Mark’s reputation, the Panel finds it unlikely that (i) Respondent could commercially use the Domain Name without violating Complainant’s trademark right under either German or English law, and that (ii) Respondent would have selected the Domain Name without knowing of the reputation of that mark.”). Thus, it is believed that there are clear and convincing evidences on the record in support of bad faith.

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.red