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.

[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 Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is the registered owner of the BLOOMBERG mark as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use. The Domain Name fully incorporates the Complainant’s mark and merely adds a gTLD “.page” which is not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from the BLOOMBERG mark. Moreover, the gTLD is generally considered irrelevant when assessing the confusing similarity of the registered mark and the domain name. The Examiner finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondents to use Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the BLOOMBERG mark. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Respondents listed on the WHOIS record are commonly known by the name “Bloomberg”. What is more, the Respondents’ contentions that the Domain Name was bought in order to establish a website about their pet is unsubstantiated. The Examiner finds that the second element of paragraph 1.2.6.2. of the URS Procedure is satisfied.

[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 BLOOMBERG mark is famous all around the world and has been used for years. Therefore, the Respondents knew or should have known of the Complainant's mark when registering <bloomberg.page>. The Examiner finds that the Respondents have registered the Domain Name in bad faith. Furthermore, the Respondents are passively holding the Domain Name which itself can be considered as a bad faith use of a domain name. In the light of above, registering a domain name corresponding to a reputable trademark, and subsequent passive holding of such a domain, thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain, is considered to satisfy the standard set out in paragraph 1.2.6.3. of the URS Procedure.

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

DETERMINATION

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 name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

bloomberg.page

	Complainant Submitted: October 15, 2018
	Commencement: October 16, 2018
	Response Date: October 24, 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: Bloomberg Finance L.P. Brendan T. Kehoe of New York, NY, United States of America

	Registries: Charleston Road Registry Inc.
	Registrars: Google 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.
	Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner

	Respondent: Jullio & Ana of Bilbao, Spain