Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1906001846599




   Complainant: Bloomberg Finance L.P. Brendan T. Kehoe of New York, NY, United States of America

   Respondent: WhoisGuard Protected / WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama Panama, Panama, PA


   Registries: BestTLD Pty Ltd
   Registrars: Namecheap


   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.
   Vali Sakellarides, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: June 6, 2019
   Commencement: June 11, 2019
   Default Date: June 26, 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").


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.


   Clear and convincing evidence.


   Findings of Fact: Complainant owns 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 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. Contested domain name <bloomberg.best> (�Domain Name�) fully incorporates the BLOOMBERG mark and merely adds the extension .best in a blatant attempt, according to the Complainant, 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, Respondent�s current and apparently only use of the Domain Name is a parked website. Therefore, 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 (�Given the notoriety of Complainant�s mark and the use given the disputed domain name by Respondent, the Panel agrees with Complainant relative to Respondent's actual knowledge, and finds that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith�).


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] 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 

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

[URS] 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 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 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:

  1. bloomberg.best


Vali Sakellarides
Dated: July 1, 2019



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page