Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. rajat jain
Claim Number: FA2303002038382
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Laya Varanasi of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is rajat jain (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bloombergbusinessweekly.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 31, 2023; Forum received payment on March 31, 2023.
On April 3, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bloombergbusinessweekly.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 April 4, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 24, 2023 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@bloombergbusinessweekly.com. Also on April 4, 2023, 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 April 28, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Bloomberg Finance L.P. provides financial news and other services.
Complainant asserts rights in the BLOOMBERG and BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK marks based upon registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as well as with other trademark registrars worldwide.
Respondent’s <bloombergbusinessweekly.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK trademark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the letters “ly” and the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com”.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <bloombergbusinessweekly.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent also does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent provides hyperlink advertisements.
Respondent registered and uses the <bloombergbusinessweekly.com>
domain name in bad faith. Respondent
failed to respond to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. Respondent had actual knowledge
of Complainant’s rights in the BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the BLOOMBERG and BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK trademarks.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website providing advertising links to third-party websites.
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”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration or any of its other trademark registrations worldwide for its BLOOMBERG or BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK trademarks is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also, Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) (“Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <bloombergbusinessweekly.com> domain name contains Complainant’s entire BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK trademark less its space, followed by “ly” and with all followed by the “.com” top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the <bloombergbusinessweekly.com> domain name from Complainant’s BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <bloombergbusinessweekly.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK trademark. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters ‘sb’ and the digits ‘2018,’ plus the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue 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 at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “rajat jain” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known as <bloombergbusinessweekly.com>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <bloombergbusinessweekly.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Respondent uses the confusingly similar <bloombergbusinessweekly.com> domain name to address a parked webpage displaying advertising links to third-parties. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First and as mention above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to direct internet users to a parked page displaying advertising links. Such use of the domain name is disruptive to Complainant’s business and capitalizes on the confusion that Respondent created between the domain name and Complainant’s trademark. Respondent’s use of <bloombergbusinessweekly.com> in this manner shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of <bloombergbusinessweekly.com> pursuant to Policy¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy¶ 4(b)(iv). See Plain Green, LLC v. wenqiang tang, FA 1505001621656 (Forum July 1, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to feature generic third-party hyperlinks constituted bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK mark when it registered <bloombergbusinessweekly.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK trademark. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bloombergbusinessweekly.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: May 1, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page