Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Moniker Privacy Services
Claim Number: FA1912001876373

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

The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark: Examiner finds that Complainant holds a valid national or regional trademark registration and that is in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark 'BUSINESSWEEK.' See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Sam Dyer, FA 1774201 (Forum March 20, 2018; finding the domain name <businessweek.london> is identical to Complainantï¿½s trademark BUSINESSWEEK.)

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Complainant contends that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use Complainantï¿½s BUSINESSWEEK mark or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the BUSINESSWEEK mark; there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent listed on the WHOIS record is commonly known by the name BUSINESSWEEK; Respondentï¿½s current and apparently only use of the disputed domain name is a non-functioning website; Respondent cannot claim a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name based on the notion that it has used it in connection with a bona fide offer of goods or services; and Respondent has no legitimate interest in and no valid basis to claim noncommercial fair use of Complainantï¿½s BUSINESSWEEK mark. Examiner agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent has no rights or interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

[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

Complainant asserts that it 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; the disputed domain name was registered on January 27, 1995, and the domain name has continuously been used since then; and these facts lead to the conclusion that Respondent was aware of Complainantï¿½s marks before registering the disputed domain name. Examiner infers due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark at the time of its registering the disputed domain name. Therefore, Examiner determines that the dispute domain name was registered and 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:

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:

businessweek.website

	Complainant Submitted: December 23, 2019
	Commencement: December 26, 2019
	Default Date: January 10, 2020
	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. Paul Ramundo of New York, NY, United States of America

	Respondent: Moniker Privacy Services Privacy of Fort Lauderdale, FL, US

	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.
	Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner

	Registries: DotWebsite Inc.
	Registrars: Key-Systems LLC