Bloomberg Finance L.P. v.
Claim Number: FA1810001810316
Complainant: Bloomberg Finance L.P. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent: Yaniv Klain / Paradise Holdings LTD of abc, abc, International, Israel.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Dog Beach, LLC
Registrars: 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 Examiner in this proceeding.
Jonathan Agmon, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: October 4, 2018
Commencement: October 15, 2018
Default Date: October 30, 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.
Complainant, Bloomberg Finance L.P., is a renowned American company in the business of financial news and information.
Complainant is the owner of the mark “BLOOMBERG” including U.S. Reg. No. 3430969, which was registered on May 20, 2008, bearing first dates of use in August 31, 1987; and related family of marks including U.S. Reg. Nos. 2736744, 4674394 and 4875272.
Complainant asserts the following against the Respondent:
1. The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS 1.2.6.1]: for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use;
2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS 1.2.6.2];
3. The domain name was registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as: By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant's web site or other online 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.
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.
[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
Complainant is the owner of the mark BLOOMBERG including U.S. Reg. No. 3430969, which was registered on May 20, 2008, bearing first dates of use in August 31, 1987; and related family of marks including U.S. Reg. Nos. 2736744, 4674394 and 4875272.
The domain name includes the Complainant's mark in its entirety with the addition of the word “s”, together with the gTLD ".news". The addition of the letter “s” is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark, especially when the gTLD “.news” is part of the domain.
[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 Respondent to use its BLOOMBERG mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the registered domain name. Since the disputed domain name resolves to a parking web page showing links associated with the Complainant, the Respondent’s use is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent failed to provide a response indicating what legitimate rights or interest he has in the disputed domain name, if any.
[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 disputed domain name resolves to a parked page with pay-per-click links which clearly target the Complainant. Such links include the Complainant’s mark and words such as “news”, “markets”, “business week”, etc. The Complainant’s name and trademark appear clearly on these links. The links resolve to the Complainant’s website along side with other websites offering financial news and information related services. Such links mislead Internet users to believe the page is either associated or sponsored by the Complainant. The Complainant’s mark is distinctive and is closely associated with the Complainant in the relevant field. The inclusion of the Complainant’s mark as a whole in the disputed domain name and in the links on the parked page provide clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The conclusion is that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to attract for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3 (d).
The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.
The Examiner finds as follows:
1. 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.
<bloombergs.news>
Jonathan Agmon, Examiner
Dated: November 2, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page