Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Antoshan Filonov
Claim Number: FA2112001976019
Complainant is Bridgewater Associates, LP (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Antoshan Filonov (“Respondent”), Ukraine.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bridgewaterholdingscorp.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 6, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 6, 2021.
On December 7, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bridgewaterholdingscorp.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 December 8, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 28, 2021 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@bridgewaterholdingscorp.com. Also on December 8, 2021, 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 December 30.2021 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant claims rights in the BRIDGEWATER trademark and service mark relying on its portfolio of registrations described below. Complainant furthermore claims rights established by extensive and continuous use of the mark since 1975 providing investment management services over which time it asserts that it has grown to become the world’s largest hedge fund.
In support of the submission that it has established a reputation in the use of the mark, Complainant has provided a screen capture of the home page of its own website at <www.bridgewater.com>, which provides information about Complainant and the financial services it offers under its BRIDGEWATER service mark.
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name which incorporates Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark in whole, must be deemed identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Global Esprit Inc. v. Living 4, D2004-0318 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2004) (confusion found in domain name that incorporated complainant’s mark in full).
Complainant further contends that the addition of the descriptive or generic terms “holdings” and “corp” fails to obviate the confusing similarity. See Morgan Stanley v. Israrul Hasan c/o Manhattan Consulting Partners, LLC, FA 1246046 (Forum Mar. 24, 2009) (addition of generic words “bank” and “online” in domain name MORGANSTANLEYBANKONLINE to complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark did not obviate confusion).
Furthermore, Complainant argues that the addition of the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension <.com> does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Morgan Stanley v. Morgan Stanley, FA 1169733 (Forum May 3, 2008) (finding addition of gTLD “.com” irrelevant for purposes of distinguishing disputed domain name from established mark because every domain must contain top level domain name).
Complainant next submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that upon information and belief, neither the term BRIDGEWATER nor the disputed domain name form any part of Respondent’s name, nor is Respondent commonly known by any those names.
Additionally, Complainant contends that upon information and belief, Respondent did not actually engage in any business or commerce under the name BRIDGEWATER or the disputed domain name prior to the time Complainant established rights in its BRIDGEWATER mark. See Pfizer Inc., and Pfizer Enterprises SARL v. Domain Purchase, FA 328187 (Forum Nov. 3, 2004) (no rights or legitimate interest in domain name DETROL.ORG because respondent had not offered any evidence and there was no proof suggesting that it was commonly known by the DETROL.ORG domain name).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor has Respondent ever been authorized by Complainant to register or use the BRIDGEWATER mark or the disputed domain name. Indeed, Respondent has no relationship whatsoever with Complainant. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent was not a licensee of complainant).
Complainant refers to a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which is submitted in an annex to the Complaint. The screen capture shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a website with content purporting to present a company called “Bridgewater Holdings,” which purports to offer investment services in the food and feed sector, with a focus on the Ukraine.
Complainant submits that because it is also engaged in financial services using the BRIDGEWATER mark, such use of the disputed domain name by Respondent is not legitimate, bona fide or fair, nor is it a bona fide offering of goods and services or use for a legitimate business purpose. See FC Online Marketing, Inc. v. Brett Ray, FA 1643100 (Forum Nov. 19, 2015) (use of confusingly similar domain name “to market, for commercial gain, services similar to those of Complainant,” was not bona fide or legitimate use).
Moreover, Complainant submits that upon information and belief, the financial services offered via Respondent’s website are fake, and, asserts that counsel for Complainant has sent three emails to Respondent at the email address listed on Respondent’s website, with no response.
Furthermore, it is submitted that counsel for Complainant cannot find any other Internet references to Respondent’s purported officers which further suggests that the company named “Bridgewater Holdings,” on Respondent’s and the website contents are illegitimate and that the offering of such fake services is neither a legitimate nor bona fide use of the disputed domain name. See Acton Educational Services d/b/a West Coast Univ. v. West Coast Univ. Int’l Inc., FA 1191541 (Forum July 2, 2008) (website offering fake educational services was not a legitimate use of domain name).
Complainant next alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith arguing that it’s BRIDGEWATER mark is so well-known that the only plausible inference that can be derived from Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is that it was registered to take advantage of, and intentionally trade on, the goodwill associated with Complainant and its marks.
Complainant adds that Respondent would be hard-pressed to provide any legitimate explanation for registering the disputed domain name other than to take advantage of the goodwill and brand recognition associated with Complainant and its famous BRIDGEWATER mark. See Singapore Airlines Limited v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant’s well-known trademark, very use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith).
Complainant further alleges that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith, arguing that it is clearly more than a coincidence that Respondent chose and registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and there can be no doubt that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its mark when Respondent chose and registered the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that Respondent chose the disputed domain name because it was confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known marks intending to capitalize on that confusion to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website. Complainant contends that this alone constitutes evidence of bad faith of and registration of the disputed domain name. See Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. JalapenoWare LLC, FA 1302464 (Forum Feb. 22, 2010) (bad faith demonstrated by confusing use of famous DISNEY mark in domain names DISENY.COM and DSINEY.COM).
Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name in connection with Respondent’s website, which purports to offer financial services similar or identical to those that have been long offered by Complainant under BRIDGEWATER mark, is further evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Barclays PLC v. Craven Casper, FA 1811368 (Forum Nov. 12, 2018) (disputed domain name BARCLAYSBANKDELAWARE.US that resolved to site offering purported banking services that were identical or closely related to financial services offered by Complainant was used and registered in bad faith).
Complainant adds that given the striking similarities between Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name, Respondent’s use and registration of the disputed domain name also is likely to cause “initial interest confusion,” which is disruptive to Complainant, its business, and goodwill in its marks. See Chiquita Canyon, LLC v. Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC, FA 1607881 (Forum Apr. 22, 2015) (bad faith use and registration found for domain name that caused initial interest confusion).
Moreover, Complainant contends that Respondent’s apparent offering of fake services also shows Respondent’s bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names. See Acton Educational Services d/b/a West Coast Univ. v. West Coast Univ. Int’l Inc., FA 1191541 (Forum July 2, 2008) (website offering fake educational services was not a legitimate use of domain name).
Finally, Complainant submits that its BRIDGEWATER mark is so well known and registered in many countries throughout the world, including the UK, that Respondent is presumed to have had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s marks at the time he or she registered the confusingly similar domain name which indicates Respondent’s bad faith use and registration. See Carnival Plc v. Belize Domain WHOIS Service Lt, FA 997973 (Forum July 17, 2007) (constructive knowledge of mark due to federal registration is evidence of bad faith).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant provides hedge fund and financial services under the BRIDGEWATER mark in its substantial international business and is the owner of an international portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations including the following:
· United States of America registered service mark BRIDGEWATER (device), registration number 3.302,018 registered on the Principal Register on October 2, 2007 for services in international class 36;
· United States of America registered service mark BRIDGEWATER, registration number 2,395,503 registered on the Principal Register on October 17, 2000 for services in international class 36;
· European Union Trade Mark BRIDGEWATER, registration number 3179264 registered on April 21, 2004 for goods in class 16 and services in class 36;
· United Kingdom Trade Mark BRIDGEWATER, registration number UK00903179264, registered on April 21, 2004 for goods in classes 16 and services in class 36.
Complainant also has an established Internet presence, hosting its official website at <www.bridgewater.com>.
The record shows that the disputed domain name was registered on May 5, 2021 and resolves to a website that purports to provide investment services.
There is no information available about Respondent, except for that provided in the Compliant, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Forum for verification of the registration details of the disputed domain name.
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 has provided convincing evidence that it has rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark established by its ownership of the trademark and service mark registrations described above and its long, extensive and international use of the mark in its financial services and investment business.
The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark, the terms “holdings” and “corp” and the gTLD extension <.com>.
Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark is the initial, dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name. Neither the term “holdings” nor “corp” either separately or in combination add any distinguishing character to the disputed domain name.
In the circumstances of this Complaint, the gTLD extension <.com> would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name.
This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BRIDGEWATER mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has made out an uncontested prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that
· upon information and belief, neither the term BRIDGEWATER nor the disputed domain name is part of Respondent’s name;
· upon information and belief, Respondent did not actually engage in any business or commerce under the name BRIDGEWATER or the disputed domain name prior to the time Complainant established rights in its BRIDGEWATER mark;
· Respondent was not commonly known by any those names;
· Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant;
· Respondent ever been authorized by Complainant to register or use the BRIDGEWATER mark or the disputed domain name;
· Respondent has no relationship whatsoever with Complainant;
· The screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which is submitted in an annex to the Complaint shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a website with content purporting to present a company called “Bridgewater Holdings,” which purports to offer financial and investment management services that are identical or closely related to services provided by Complainant under its BRIDGEWATER mark and such unauthorized use of the disputed domain name is not legitimate, bona fide or fair, nor is it a bona fide offering of goods and services or use for a legitimate business purpose;
· upon information and belief, the financial services offered on Respondent’s website are fake;
· counsel for Complainant has sent three emails to Respondent at the email address listed on Respondent’s website, without any response;
· counsel for Complainant cannot find any other Internet references to the people identified by Respondent as being the purported officers of the business identified on Respondent’s website as “Bridgewater Holdings”, which further suggests that the company named “Bridgewater Holdings,” on Respondent’s and the website contents are not legitimate and that the offering of such fake services is neither a legitimate nor bona fide use of the disputed domain name.
It is well established that once our complainant makes out a prima facie case that a complainant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
This Panel does not accept Complainant’s submissions that the only plausible inference that can be derived from the registration of the disputed domain name is that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to take advantage of and intentionally trade on the goodwill associated with Complainant and its marks. Nor does this Panel accept that there is no possible legitimate explanation for registering the disputed domain name.
It is not implausible that a registrant would chose and register the disputed domain name without intending any reference to Complainant.
BRIDGEWATER is a geographical placename and a family name and is not a coined word. The elements “ holdings” and “corp” within the disputed domain name simply imply a corporate significance, with no specific reference to Complainant.
However, the uncontested submissions and evidence adduced in the Complaint show that the disputed domain name is being used as the address of a website that purports to be established by a non-existent entity calling itself “Bridgewater Holdings” and to be “an investment company with a focus on Food and Feed production and distribution Industry on European developing markets”.
The content of the website is very basic and appears to have only three web pages. It is most improbable that any genuine business would present such an under-developed website. It would also appear that the website provides false information regarding the purported partners and investment managers of the “Bridgewater Holdings” business.
Complainant has shown that it has a long and extensive presence in the world of international investment. It is therefore improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name would not have been aware of Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark, <bridgwater.com> domain name and the associated website when the disputed domain name was being chosen and registered.
Furthermore, it is improbable that if Respondent was genuinely engaged in providing investment services he would not be aware of Complainant, its name, mark and reputation and realize that his use of the disputed domain name was likely to confuse and divert Internet users seeking information about Complainant and its business.
This Panel finds therefore that there is sufficient uncontested evidence adduced by Complainant to establish on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain name was registered with Complainant’s mark in mind in order to take unfair advantage of Complainant’s name, mark, reputation and goodwill in the mark and target and confuse Internet users seeking information about Complainant and its business.
This Panel finds therefore that, on the balance of probabilities, by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his web site or the services purported to be offered on his website.
As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bridgewaterholdingscorp.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James Bridgeman SC
Panelist
Dated: January 3, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page