Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Keith Butler
Claim Number: FA1709001751546
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Amin Kassam of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is Keith Butler (“Respondent”), Virginia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is<bloomberg-homepage.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Richard Hill 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, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bloomberg-homepage.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 2, 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@bloomberg-homepage.com. Also on October 2, 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.
Respondent did not submit a formal Response, but he did send two e-mails to the Forum, see below. Having received no formal response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 26, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it, or its parent company, have been in business continuously since 1981, operating under the “Bloomberg” name in the USA and around the world since at least 1987. It is one of the largest providers of global financial news and data and related goods and services and is recognized and trusted worldwide as a leading source of financial information and analysis. One of Complainant’s services has over 300,000 subscribers worldwide. Complainant employs 19,000 people in 192 offices around the world. Complainant has rights in the BLOOMBERG mark based upon registration in the United State in 2003. The mark is also registered elsewhere around the world.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark as it contains the mark entirely while merely adding a hyphen, the generic term “homepage” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Complainant alleges that 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 uses the disputed domain name to point to a non-functioning website.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent has registered and used the 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. Respondent did however send two e-mails to the Forum. In the first e-mail he states, in pertinent part, that he acted in good faith and that Complainant’s allegations are not correct. He goes on to state: “I will transfer said domain to [Complainant] when he provides me with the details for the transfer”. In his second e-mail Respondent states, in pertinent part: “Send me your transfer details and I will transfer said domain to you [Complainant].”
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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 the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <bloomberg-homepage.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: October 26, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page