Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Yang Yang et al.
Claim Number: FA1808001802312
Complainant: Bloomberg Finance L.P. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent: Yang Yang of Lan Zhou, China.
Yang Yang of lan zhou, GS, International, CN.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .TOP Registry
Registrars: Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
David L. Kreider as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: August 20, 2018
Commencement: August 21, 2018
Default Decision Date: September 5, 2018
Response Date: September 29, 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.
URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended:
1.2.6.1. 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;
1.2.6.2. that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain
name; and
1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant’s registered BLOOMBERG Marks are owned by Complainant’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Bloomberg Finance One L.P. The Complainant alleges, and the Examiner finds, that the BLOOMBERG Marks are strong and have gained secondary meaning through their continuous use in connection with Complainant’s electronic trading, financial news, and information businesses. The disputed domain name fully incorporates the BLOOMBERG mark. The addition of the ".top" top level domain is of no legal significance.
The Examiner notes that the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves is a “parking” site that offers the domain for sale. In its Response dated September 29, 2018, the Respondent alleges that the Complainant’s screenshot of the website “may be falsified, so can’t be trusted” and “is likely to be forged”. The Respondent provides no evidence to support its naked allegations.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights in the Marks. On its part, the Respondent alleges that he intended to use the name “BLOOMBERG” to open a bar in China. The Respondent concedes, however, that the proposed business was never launched due to unspecified “personal reasons”.
The Respondent has alleged the mere likelihood or possibility that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Respondent has adduced no evidence whatsoever to substantiate its naked allegations. The Examiner finds that the Respondent’s unsupported allegations in this respect are without merit.
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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<bloomberg.top>
David L. Kreider, Examiner
Dated: October 01, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page