URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Bloomberg Finance L.P. v.
Claim Number: FA1903001835737
DOMAIN NAME
<bloomberg.vote>
PARTIES
| Complainant: Bloomberg Finance L.P. Brendan T. Kehoe of New York, NY, United States of America | |
| Respondent: Luis Meran of Deltona, FL, US | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
| Registries: Monolith Registry LLC | |
| Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC |
EXAMINER
| 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. | |
| Saravanan Dhandapani, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
| Complainant Submitted: March 26, 2019 | |
| Commencement: March 26, 2019 | |
| Default Date: April 10, 2019 | |
| 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"). |
RELIEF SOUGHT
| Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration. |
STANDARD OF REVIEW
| Clear and convincing evidence. |
FINDINGS and DISCUSSION
| Procedural Findings: | ||
| Multiple Complainants: Multiple Complainants: No multiple Complainants are involved in this proceeding. This Complaint and findings relate to the domain name <bloomberg.vote>. No domain name is dismissed from this Complaint. | ||
| Multiple Respondents: Multiple Respondents: No multiple Respondents are involved in this proceeding. This Complaint and findings relate to the domain name <bloomberg.vote>. No domain name is dismissed from this Complaint. | ||
| Findings of Fact: The case of the Complainant is as follows: This action is based upon the famous trademark and service mark BLOOMBERG, U.S. Reg. No. 3,430,969, and related family of marks including U.S. Reg. Nos. 2,736,744, 4,674,394, and 4,875,272 (�Complainant�s BLOOMBERG Marks�), which are owned by Complainant�s whollyowned subsidiary, Bloomberg Finance One L.P. Complainant�s Marks are strong and have gained secondary meaning through their continuous use in connection with Complainant�s electronic trading, financial news, and information businesses since at least 1993. On its face, the domain name <bloomberg.vote> (�Domain Name�) is confusingly similar to Complainant�s BLOOMBERG marks. The Domain Name fully incorporates the BLOOMBERG mark and only adds the extension .vote, in a blatant attempt to garner the goodwill and reputation of the famous BLOOMBERG mark. See Bloomberg L.P. v. Pleeter, LLC. et.al NAF decision 1618955, http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1618955F.htm (finding the domain <bloomberg.lawyer> is identical to Complainant�s Bloomberg mark because a top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity.) Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use Complainant�s BLOOMBERG Marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the BLOOMBERG mark. There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent listed on the WHOIS record is commonly known by the name �Bloomberg.� Moreover, since Respondent�s current and apparently only use of the Domain Name points to third party advertising, Respondent cannot claim a right or legitimate interest in the domain based on its use of the Domain Name or a corresponding name in connection with a bona fide offer of goods or services. Google Inc. v. tnt digital media,NAF Decision 1424509, http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1424509.htm (�Respondent�s parking of the website to advertise services unrelated to the business of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services�). Additionally, Complainant avers that Respondent has no legitimate interest in and no valid basis to claim noncommercial fair use of Complainant�s BLOOMBERG Marks. Complainant has a strong reputation and a high-profile presence in the financial and media sectors, and is the subject of substantial consumer recognition and goodwill. Bloomberg registered the <bloomberg.com> domain name in September 1993 and has used this domain continuously since then. These facts lead to the conclusion that Respondent was aware of Complainant�s BLOOMBERG Marks before registering the Domain Name. Indeed, arbitrators have routinely found bad faith in circumstances where it is unlikely the registrant would have selected a Bloomberg domain name without knowing the reputation of the well-known trademark in question. See, e.g., Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Bloomberg Investments, NAF Decision FA1603001665140, http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1665140.htm |
|
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant has proved by documentary evidences that they are the registered owner of trade and service mark �BLOOMBERG�. Complainant owns the BLOOMBERG trademark registration in US and such BLOOMBERG mark has achieved a well-known status. As noted, the disputed domain name <bloomberg.vote> composes �bloomberg� and �.vote�. Thus the word �BLOOMBERG� in disputed domain name is identical to Complainant�s registered trademark �BLOOMBERG�. The �.vote� in disputed domain name is a generic code top-level domain name (gTLD) suffix. It is non-distinctive and is incapable of differentiating the disputed domain name from the Complainant�s registered trademark. Based on the �BLOOMBERG� being a registered trademark of the Complainant, the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.1(i) covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant owns trademark �BLOOMBERG� under various classifications. The Complainant�s adoption and first use of the registered trademark is for decades together. In such case, the burden lies on the Respondent to prove that he/she has legitimate rights and/or interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is in default and has not filed any response. Although, the Complainant is not entitled to relief simply by default of the Respondent to submit a Response, the Examiner can however and does draw evidentiary inferences from the failure of the Respondent to respond. In view of the above, the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights and legitimate interest. Based on the record, the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Hence, the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.2 covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint and that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any manner and never authorized the Respondent to register or use any domain name incorporating �BLOOMBERG�. The Respondent has not responded in spite of the notice of complaint and notice of default under this URS determination process. It is well established that the registration and use of the disputed domain name must involve malafides where the registration and use of it was continues to be made in full knowledge of the Complainant�s prior rights in the �BLOOMBERG� registered trademark and in circumstances where the registrant did not seek permission from the Complainant, as the owner of trademark, for such registration and use. Thus the Panel Examiner comes to irresistible determination that (i) the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant�s �BLOOMBERG� trademark; (ii) the Respondent�s name does not correspond to the disputed domain name; (iii) the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed the domain name; (iv) there is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant�s mark. Hence, it is lawful to conclude that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Thus the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.3 (a) and (d) covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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. The Examiner finds as follows:
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:
|
Saravanan Dhandapani Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page