Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Mohammed Islam
Claim Number: FA2002001885651
Complainant is Bridgewater Associates, LP (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Mohammed Islam (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bridgewaterholdingsgroup.com>, registered with Wix.com Ltd.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 25, 2020; the Forum received payment on February 25, 2020.
On February 26, 2020, Wix.com Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bridgewaterholdingsgroup.com> domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wix.com Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wix.com Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On February 27, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 18, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bridgewaterholdingsgroup.com. Also, on February 27, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 13, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Bridgewater Associates, LP, is a U.S. investment management firm. Complainant has rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,395,503, registered Oct. 17, 2000). Respondent’s <bridgewaterholdingsgroup.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirely, merely adding the generic term “holdings group” and a “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <bridgewaterholdingsgroup.com> domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark in connection with investment management services that are identical or related to those offered by Complainant. Additionally, Respondent may not be offering genuine investment management services because emails sent to the addresses listed on the resolving website were returned as undeliverable and Respondent corresponded with Complainant’s representative using a generic wix.com email address.
Respondent registered and uses the <bridgewaterholdingsgroup.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to a domain name that offers services identical or related to those offered by Complainant. Additionally, Respondent uses false contact information on the resolving website. Finally, Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name indicate constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent did submit several email correspondences seemingly contesting the Claimant’s contentions, however, these submissions were not in compliance with UDRP rules regarding form or timing.
Complainant is Bridgewater Associates, LP (“Complainant”), of Westport, CT, USA. Complainant is the owner of domestic and international registrations for the mark BRIDGEWATER, which it has used continuously since at least as early as 2000, in connection with its provision of financial investment and fund management services on a global basis.
Respondent is identified as Mohammed Islam (“Respondent”), of Woodside, NY, USA. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Tel Aviv, Israel. The Panel notes that the <bridgewaterholdingsgroup.com> domain name was registered on or about December 2, 2019.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant asserts rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO may be sufficient to establish rights in that mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark). Complainant provides copies of its trademark registrations of the BRIDGEWATER mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,395,503, registered Oct. 17, 2000). The Panel here finds that Complainant has established rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent’s <bridgewaterholdingsgroup.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark as it contains the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “holdings group” and a “.com” gTLD. Addition of a generic term and a gTLD to a protected mark may not be sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from an incorporated mark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel here finds the <bridgewaterholdingsgroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel notes that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
The Panel here finds that Complainant has set forth the requisite prima facie case.
Complainant argues Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <bridgewaterholdingsgroup.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use the BRIDGEWATER mark. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as “Mohammed Islam,” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the BRIDGEWATER mark. The Panel here finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant contends Respondent fails to use the <bridgewaterholdingsgroup.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to purportedly offer identical or related services as Complainant. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to offer services that are identical or related to those of a complainant may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. VIJAY S KUMAR / STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING SERVICES PVT LTD, FA 1647718 (Forum Jan. 4, 2016) (finding that the disputed domain purports to offer for sale goods and services in the field of electronic marketing, which directly overlap with the services covered by Complainant’s registrations and offered by Complainant online, and therefore Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests through its competing use); see also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving website, which displays the company name “Bridgewater Holdings Group” and purports to offer investment management services that Complainant offers. The Panel here finds Respondent does not use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Further, Complainant argues that Respondent’s lack of a bona fide offering of good or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use is demonstrated because Respondent does not operate a business at all under the Bridgewater Holdings Group name. Complainant contends that the three email addresses listed on the disputed domain name’s resolving website are not real, because Complainant sent emails to these addresses which were returned as undeliverable. Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s LinkedIn page, which displays Respondent’s current position as CEO of Midland Capital Management. Complainant contends that the Midland Capital Management, on its website, refers to itself as a “hedge fund,” which would place it in direct competition with Complainant’s hedge fund business. The Panel here finds Complainant’s evidence supports the conclusion that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the <bridgewaterholdingsgroup.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the resolving website to offer services that are identical or related to Complainant’s services. Using a disputed domain name to offer identical services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1506001623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also CAN Financial Corporation v. William Thomson / CNA Insurance, FA1401001541484 (Forum Feb. 28, 2014) (finding that the respondent had engaged in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), by using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its own website where it sold competing insurance services). The Panel again notes that Complainant provides screenshots in support of its assertion that Respondent uses the disputed domain name’s resolving website to offer identical or related investment management services. Also, as mentioned previously, Complainant contends that the email addresses listed on the disputed domain name’s resolving website are phony. Respondent’s LinkedIn lists his employment not with a Bridgewater Holdings Group but with Midland Capital Management, and Midland Capital Management purports to offer investment management services in competition with Complainant’s investment management services. The Panel here finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
As the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bridgewaterholdingsgroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: March 27, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page