DECISION

 

Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Diego Samara

Claim Number: FA2210002014823

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Bridgewater Associates, LP (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA.  Respondent is Diego Samara (“Respondent”), Missouri, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bridgewatermgtltd.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 5, 2022. Forum received payment on October 5, 2022.

 

On October 5, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bridgewatermgtltd.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 October 6, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 26, 2022 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@bridgewatermgtltd.com.  Also on October 6, 2022, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On November 2, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Founded in 1975, Complainant, Bridgewater Associates, LP, is a renowned investment management firm that manages hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of global investments for a wide variety of clients worldwide. It is today the world’s largest hedge fund.

 

Complainant owns numerous registrations for the trademark BRIDGEWATER, which is one of the most famous marks in the financial services industry. The <bridgewatermgtltd.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, which was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

As to lack of legitimacy, before Complainant established rights in its mark, Respondent was not commonly known by the name BRIDGEWATER nor by the domain name. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor has Respondent ever been authorized by Complainant to register or use the BRIDGEWATER mark nor the domain name. Respondent has no relationship with Complainant and is not using the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services nor for any legitimate business purpose or fair use. Instead, the domain name resolves to a website for a company named “Bridgewater Wealth” offering services closely related to those offered by Complainant.

 

As to bad faith, there can be no doubt that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its mark when Respondent registered the domain name. Complainant’s mark is so well-known that Respondent would be hard-pressed to provide any legitimate explanation for registering the domain name other than to take advantage of the goodwill and brand recognition associated with Complainant and its famous mark. Respondent’s website purports to offer financial services related to those that have long been offered by Complainant. By causing initial interest confusion, Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name disrupts the business of Complainant.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

DISCUSSION

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”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has shown that it has rights in the mark BRIDGEWATER through numerous registrations, including with the USPTO, (e.g. Reg. No. 2,395,503, registered on October 17, 2000). The Panel finds Respondent’s <bridgewatermgtltd.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, since it contains the entirety of the mark, together with the descriptive or generic terms “mgt” (an abbreviation for “management”) and “ltd” (an abbreviation for “limited”), which are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark. The inconsequential gTLD “.com” may be ignored.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.

 

(i)         before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)        Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)       Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <bridgewatermgtltd.com> domain name was registered in the name of Respondent, Diego Samara, on July 20, 2022, many years after Complainant has shown that its BRIDGEWATER mark had become famous worldwide. Complainant’s evidence (Exhibit 6) shows that the domain name does not, as claimed, resolve to a website for a company named “Bridgewater Wealth” but rather resolves to a website for a company named “Bridgewater Management Limited” that is offering financial services of the kind offered by Complainant, including stock certificate issuance, stock transfer services and initial public offering services. There is no evidence that Respondent, Diego Samara, is associated with a company known as Bridgewater Management Limited or has been commonly known by the domain name.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <bridgewatermgtltd.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).

Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:

(iv)       by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s famous BRIDGEWATER mark when Respondent registered the <bridgewatermgtltd.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source of Respondent’s website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bridgewatermgtltd.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated:  November 3, 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page