Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. kavita @ N/A
Claim Number: FA1810001811305
Complainant: Bloomberg Finance L.P. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Respondent: kavita @ N/A of gurgaon, Haryana, International, IN.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: INFIBEAM INCORPORATION LIMITED
Registrars: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
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 11, 2018
Commencement: October 12, 2018
Default Date: October 28, 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 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 BUSINESSWEEK including U.S. Reg. No. 1746837, which was registered on January 19, 1993, bearing first dates of use in 1950 and 1981 for its good and services respectively; and related family of marks including U.S. Reg. Nos. 0549742, 1938462, and 3467035.
The domain name includes the Complainant's mark in its entirety, together with the gTLD ".ooo".
[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 BUSINESSWEEK mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the registered domain name. 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.
[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. The Complainant’s name and trademark appear prominently on these links. The links resolve to the Complainant’s website along side with other websites offering business related services. Such links mislead Internet users to believe the page is either associated or sponsored by the Complainant. While the Complainant’s mark does comprise of two dictionary words which are combined, the use of links which are not related to the dictionary meaning of such words and specifically the inclusion of the Complainant’s name within said links provides a clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent’s 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.
<businessweek.ooo>
Jonathan Agmon, Examiner
Dated: October 29, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page