Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jnathan Swan
Claim Number: FA1808001802072
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Brendan T. Kehoe of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is Jnathan Swan (“Respondent”), Great Britain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bloomberg-markets.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Steven M. Levy, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 17, 2018; the Forum received payment on August 17, 2018.
On August 20, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bloomberg-markets.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 August 20, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 10, 2018 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-markets.com. Also on August 20, 2018, 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 September 12, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Steven M. Levy, Esq. 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 is one of the largest providers of financial news and data in the world and uses the BLOOMBERG trademark in connection with its goods and services. Complainant has rights in the mark based upon registration thereof with a number of national trademark offices around the world. Respondent’s <bloomberg-markets.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark as the Respondent merely adds a hyphen, the descriptive term “markets” and appends the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <bloomberg-markets.com> domain name. Respondent is not permitted or licensed to use Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, 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 has used the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s own website but, at present, Respondent fails to make any active use of the disputed domain name.
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent must have had actual and/or constructive notice of Complainant’s globally famous mark before registering the domain name. Further, Respondent’s failure to transfer the disputed domain name after agreeing to do so is evidence of bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds a number of registrations for its BLOOMBERG trademark with various national governmental offices around the world in connection with providing financial and business news, data, and related services.
Respondent registered the <bloomberg-markets.com>domain name on December 6, 2017. Based upon statements made in its correspondence, Respondent consents to the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.
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."
Consent to Transfer
Complainant has submitted into evidence copies of correspondence it had with the Respondent. This begins with a letter, dated December 9, 2017, in which Complainant asks Respondent to voluntarily transfer the <bloomberg-markets.com> domain name. On December 11, 2017 Respondent replies to this request with an email stating “I can transfer registration of the Domain Name to you not a problem.” On December 12, 2017, Respondent sent a further email to Complainant stating “I will transfer the www.bloomberg-markets.com URL to you.” Later that same day, Complainant sent an email to Respondent asking what information it needed to transfer the Disputed Domain and Respondent replied “I need the email you have associated with your namecheap account.” This information was provided to Respondent by Complainant and Respondent’s next email reply consisted of the single word “done”. Unfortunately, the domain was not actually transferred to Complainant and Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s further correspondence.
From the evidence submitted by Complainant, this Panel determines that Respondent has consented to a transfer of the <bloomberg-markets.com> domain name to Complainant. The statements made by Respondent in its correspondence are unambiguous even if its attempt to transfer the domain was not successful. Further, Respondent has not submitted a response or any other form of communication in the present proceeding to contradict its prior indications of consent. Of course, after the initiation of this proceeding, the concerned registrar placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain name while this proceeding is still pending.
As a result, in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name in question to Complainant, the Panel finds that it may forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <bloomberg-markets.com> domain name to the Complainant. See 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 Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . 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.”); 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.”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common consent of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <bloomberg-markets.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Steven M. Levy, Esq., Panelist
Dated: September 12, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page