Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Titus Waitara
Claim Number: FA1709001751508
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Amin Kassam of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is TITUS WAITARA (“Respondent”), Kenya.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bloomberglimited.com>, registered with NetEarth One Inc. d/b/a NetEarth.
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 Panelist in this proceeding.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 29, 2017; the Forum received payment on September 29, 2017.
On October 2, 2017, NetEarth One Inc. d/b/a NetEarth confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bloomberglimited.com> domain name is registered with NetEarth One Inc. d/b/a NetEarth and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NetEarth One Inc. d/b/a NetEarth has verified that Respondent is bound by the NetEarth One Inc. d/b/a NetEarth registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 3, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 23, 2017 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bloomberglimited.com. Also on October 3, 2017, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 October 25, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant has rights in the mark based upon registration with the United State Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,736,744, registered July 15, 2003). See Compl., Attached Ex. B. Respondent’s <bloomberglimited.com> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it contains the mark in its entirety and adds only the generic or descriptive word “limited” along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not granted Respondent permission or license to use the BLOOMBERG mark for any purpose. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent makes no demonstrable preparations to use.
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent must have had actual and/or constructive notice of Complainant’s mark before registering the domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain name was created on September 8, 2017.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name; and that Respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
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 Mgmt., 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 finds that the disputed domain name, <bloomberglimited.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, BLOOMBERG. Complainant has adequately pled its rights and interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain name by merely deleting a space, adding the generic word “limited,” and the g TLD “.com.” This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
Further, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name. Respondent has no license or permission to register the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent makes no demonstrable preparations to use.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain name.
Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Although Complainant makes no specific assertions about the nature of this bad faith use and registration, given the fame of Complainant’s mark and the totality of the circumstances under the non-exhaustive analysis of Policy Para. 4(a)(iii), the Panel finds Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
The Panel further finds that Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant and Complainant’s interest in and to the trademark BLOOMBERG. Given the fame of this mark and the wide usage as Complainant has delineated in its complaint, the Panel finds that Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant and Complainant’s interest in the trademark BLOOMBERG.
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bloomberglimited.com> domain name transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: October 26, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page