Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA1808001801975
Complainant: Bloomberg Finance L.P. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Respondent: WhoisGuard Protected / WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama, International, PA.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Dog Beach, LLC
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
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 Examiner in this proceeding.
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: August 17, 2018
Commencement: August 20, 2018
Default Date: September 5, 2018
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The Complainant, Bloomberg Finance L.P., is a global financial services and software company established in the United States. The Complainant is one of the leading providers of financial software and analytics tools, and is the provider of several media and news outlets related to corporate and financial matters. The Complainant employs approximately 19,000 employees in 176 locations around the world.
The Complainant is the holder of inter alia the national United States word mark “BLOOMBERG” (Reg. No. 3,430,969) and the United States word mark “BLOOMBERG NEWS” (Reg. No. 2,266,559) .
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <bloombergnews.live> on June 26, 2018. The disputed domain name is used to redirect to a website containing a live Bloomberg news feed and several advertisements.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended:
1. that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark: (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed; and
2. that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name; and
3. that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
URS, paras. 1.2.6 and 8.1.
[URS
1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration
and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the
time the URS complaint is filed.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
The record makes clear that the Complainant “holds a valid national or regional registration and that [it] is in current use”. The Examiner finds that the second-level portion of the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered BLOOMBERG NEWS trademark. As the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, the new gTLD “.LIVE” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825). It could even add to the confusing similarity as it refers to the Complainant’s live news broadcasts. As the registered domain name is identical to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration that is in current use, the Examiner considers that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the URS in accordance with paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the URS.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its registered BLOOMBERG or BLOOMBERG NEWS trademarks. The Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he or she is commonly known under the disputed domain name. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in BLOOMBERG and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. The use of a domain name to display live feed of the Complainant’s news broadcast does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent does not contest the arguments of the Complainant. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the second element for the Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.2 has also been proven.
[URS
1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
a. Registrant 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;
or
b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark
holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name,
provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of
disrupting the business of a competitor; or
d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract
for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line
location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as
to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web
site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect to a webpage containing a live feed of the Complainant’s news broadcast together with several advertisements. Redirecting the domain name to a website can be an indication of bad faith as such when it is done for commercial gain (See VistaPrint USA, Inc. v. Electric Attic, NAF Case No. 1258624; Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Internet Hosting, NAF Case No. 124516). This is almost certainly the case when the domain name is used to redirect to a feed which displays the Complainant’s news services, and which contains several advertisements. By displaying the Complainant’s news broadcast, the Respondent created a high likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website originating from the Respondent.
The Respondent also failed to respond to the complaint in accordance with the Rules. It is inconceivable to this Panel that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and the BLOOMBERG trade mark when it registered the disputed domain name which is identical to the BLOOMBERG NEWS trade mark.
Additionally, the use of a privacy service by the Respondent further indicates that the Respondent has taken active steps to conceal its identity, which may further support an inference of bad faith in light of the circumstances in which the service or the domain name is used. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the third element for the Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven.
The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, Examiner
Dated: September 05, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page