DECISION

 

Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Istrati Sergiu

Claim Number: FA2404002093737

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Bridgewater Associates, LP ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Istrati Sergiu ("Respondent"), Indonesia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bridgewater-stellar.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.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 17, 2024; Forum received payment on April 17, 2024.

 

On April 18, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bridgewater-stellar.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 April 18, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 8, 2024 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@bridgewater-stellar.com. Also on April 18, 2024, 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 May 9, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations, examples of which are set out below, together with the goodwill and protectable reputation it has acquired in the mark by its use in its investment management business with hundreds of billions of dollars under management for a wide variety of clients world-wide.

 

Complainant avers that over four decades it has grown to become the world's largest hedge fund as evidenced by media articles which are exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the BRIDGEWATER mark in which it has rights, arguing that because it incorporates Complainant's BRIDGEWATER mark in whole, it must be deemed identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. See Global Esprit Inc. v. Living 4, WIPO Case D2004-0318 (confusion found in domain name that incorporated complainant's mark in full).

 

Furthermore, Complainant submits that the addition of the descriptive or generic term "stellar", which is the name of a blockchain protocol, does not 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).

 

Complainant adds that neither the hyphen nor the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> within the disputed domain name serve to 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).

 

Next, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that

·       upon information and belief, neither Complainant's BRIDGEWATER mark nor the disputed domain name is part of Respondent's name;

·       upon information and belief, prior to the time Complainant established rights in its BRIDGEWATER mark, Respondent did not actually engage in any business or commerce under the name BRIDGEWATER or the disputed domain name;

·       Respondent is not commonly known by the BRIDGEWATER mark or the disputed domain name, 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);

·       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;

·       Respondent has no relationship whatsoever with Complainant, see Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, WIPO Case D2000-0403 (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent was not a licensee of complainant);

·       Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services or for any legitimate business or purpose or fair use;

·       as shown in the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the disputed domain name redirects Internet traffic to the homepage of Complainant's official website <www.bridgewater.com>;

·       such misdirection of Internet traffic is an attempt to mislead consumers to believe mistakenly that the disputed domain name is associated with Complainant and its services;

·       also upon information and belief, Respondent also used the disputed domain to impersonate Complainant and in this regard Complainant refers to a screen capture which is also exhibited in an annex to the Complaint which illustrates that Respondent has established unauthorized Telegram channels @bridgewaterstellar and @ Whiplash347 which linked to the Stellar Lumens trading platforms Lobstr, StellarTerm, and Scopuly which advertised purported crypto trading services and linked to <www.bridgewater-stellar.com>;

·       Respondent is therefore using the disputed domain name in a coordinated scheme to impersonate Complainant, attempting to phish for client information or to provide fake investment opportunities which is not a legitimate or bona fide use of the disputed domain name. See Morgan Stanley v. Doniqish Doniqish, FA 1898199 (Forum June 24, 2020) ("Redirecting Internet users to the Complainant's website without the Complainant's authorization is not bona fide use or legitimate noncommercial fair use");

·       Respondent therefore cannot establish a bona fide or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, which incorporates in full one of the most famous marks in the financial services industry. See Morgan Stanley v. Morgan Stanley Latin America, LLC, DRS 3070 (Nominet Dec. 15, 2005) ("Given the strong reputation of the 'Morgan Stanley' name and business, and based on the facts and circumstances set out in the Complaint, I cannot think of any justification for the Respondent's registration or use of the Domain Name").

 

Complainant next alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and 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 the BRIDGEWATER mark.

 

Complainant adds that its BRIDGEWATER mark is so well-known that the only plausible inference that can be derived from Respondent's registration of the confusingly similar domain name, is that it was registered to take advantage of, and intentionally trade on, the goodwill associated with Complainant and its mark.

 

There can be no doubt that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its mark when Respondent chose and registered the disputed domain name, and in fact the disputed domain name was chosen because it was confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known marks and intended to capitalize on that confusion to attract Internet users to Respondent's website. 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).

 

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 mark.

 

Furthermore, Complainant argues that, as described above, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and to cause consumer confusion. Such false association and passing off in connection with phishing in violation of Complainant's intellectual property rights is conclusive evidence of bad faith use and registration. See Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where respondent hosted a website that "duplicated Complainant's mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant's business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark")

 

In conclusion, Complainant argues that by causing likely initial interest confusion, Respondent's use and registration of the disputed domain name disrupts the business of Complainant, which is additional evidence of bad faith use and registration. 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).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant carries on the business of investment management using the BRIDGEWATER service mark for which it owns an international portfolio of service mark registrations including:

·       United States registered service mark BRIDGEWATER (and design), registration number 3,302,018 registered on the Principal Register on October 2, 2007, for services in international class 36;

·       United States registered service mark BRIDGEWATER registration number 2,395,503, registered on the Principal Register on October 17, 2000, for services in international class 36;

·       EUTM registration number 3179264, registered on April 21, 2004, for goods and services in classes 16 and 36;

·       UK BRIDGEWATER Reg. No. UK00903179264 registered on April 21, 2004, for goods and services in classes 16 and 36; and

·       China registered service mark BRIDGEWATER, registration number 3565667 August 14, 2005, for services in class 36.

 

Complainant has an established Internet presence and operates a website at <www.bridgewater.com>, on which it provides financial services offered under its BRIDGEWATER mark.

 

The disputed domain name <bridgewater-stellar.com> was registered on January 29, 2024, and resolves to the homepage of Complainant's own official website.

 

There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 provided uncontested convincing evidence of its rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark which it uses in the provision of financial services.

 

The disputed domain name <bridgewater-stellar.com> consists of Complainant's BRIDGEWATER mark, a hyphen, the word "stellar" and the gTLD <.com> extension.

 

Complainant's mark is the initial, dominant, and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name.

 

Neither the hyphen nor the word "stellar", nor the hyphen add any distinguishing character to the disputed domain name and do not prevent a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

The former element is descriptive, and among other meanings, it is the name of a cryptocurrency protocol, and the hyphen only serves to emphasize Complainant's BRIDGEWATER mark by separating it from the other elements of the disputed domain name.

 

Neither does the gTLD extension <.com> prevent a finding of that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because in the circumstances of this proceeding, it would be ignored by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for an Internet domain name.

 

This Panel finds therefore that since 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).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In its Complaint, Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent 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).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant has proven that it has an enormous international reputation in the financial services industry and has held registered and common law rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark for many years, up to four decades.

 

The disputed domain name is the combination of Complainant's BRIDGEWATER mark and the word "stellar' which has numerous meanings including being the name of a blockchain protocol. It is therefore improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name unaware of Complainant and its hedge fund business when the disputed domain name <bridgewater-stellar.com> was chosen and registered on January 29, 2024

 

On the balance of probabilities, the disputed domain name was chosen and registered in bad faith with the intention of targeting and taking predatory advantage of Complainant, its business, its clients and potential clients, and its goodwill and reputation in the BRIDGEWATER mark.

 

The screen captures of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, which are exhibited by Complainant, show that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to Complainant's own principal website. This is an intentional attempt to create the impression that there is a connection between Complainant, an organization with global reach, and the disputed domain name.

 

By using the disputed domain name in this manner, Respondent is using Complainant's mark in an endeavor to attract Internet users, intercept their Internet traffic, confuse them, and direct their traffic to Complainant's website. Such unauthorized use of the disputed domain name is an interreference with Complainant's business and its relationship with actual or potential Clients.

 

The interception of Internet traffic in this manner is sinister, particularly inferring a relationship with a firm that provides investment services to the public.

 

Respondent's use of the disputed domain name in this manner constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

_____________________________________________

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist

Dated: May 10, 2024