DECISION

 

Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Dennis Friesen

Claim Number: FA2501002134020

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bridgewater-gh.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 7, 2025; Forum received payment on January 7, 2025.

 

On January 8, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bridgewater-gh.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 January 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 28, 2025 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-gh.com. Also on January 8, 2025, 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 January 29, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant, Bridgewater Associates, LP, offers investment services. Complainant asserts rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark based upon registration with various trademark authorities in multiple countries, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 2,395,503, registered October 17, 2000). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it contains the BRIDGEWATER mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive or generic term "gh" (an abbreviation for the country Ghana)" and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com" to form the disputed domain name.

 

ii) Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's BRIDGEWATER mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name has been used to impersonate Complainant via the website associated with the disputed domain name, which offered purported financial services, including investment and trading services.

 

iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and offer competing services. 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. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on October 15, 2019.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark based upon registration with various trademark authorities in multiple countries, including the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,395,503, registered October 17, 2000).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website purportedly operated by a financial services firm under the name "BRIDGEWATER."

 

4. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves prominently displays a black-and-white logo that is identical or nearly identical to Complainant's logo, along with other logos in its footer and favicon that depict the yield curve and are identical or nearly identical to the logos used by Complainant.

 

5. The website associated with the disputed domain name lists Complainant's headquarters address as its own.

 

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 asserts rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark based on its registration with various trademark authorities in multiple countries, including the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,395,503, registered October 17, 2000). Registration of a mark with multiple trademark authorities constitutes a valid demonstration of rights in a mark. As Complainant has submitted evidence of registration with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <bridgewater-gh.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it fully incorporates the BRIDGEWATER mark, merely adding the descriptive or generic term "gh" (an abbreviation for the country Ghana) and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com." Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the addition of a geographic term and a gTLD is insufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark. See Franklin Covey Co. v. franklincoveykorea, FA 1774660 (Forum Apr. 11, 2018) (finding that <franklincoveykorea.com> is confusingly similar to the FRANKLIN COVEY mark, as "[t]he addition of a geographic term and a gTLD do not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant's mark and merely adds the geographic term "gh" and the ".com" gTLD. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BRIDGEWATER mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "Dennis Friesen" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name resolves to a website purportedly operated by a financial services firm under the name "BRIDGEWATER." Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to offer competing and related services is generally not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Netflix, Inc. v. Irpan Panjul / 3corp.inc, FA 1741976 (Forum Aug. 22, 2017) ("The usage of Complainant's NETFLIX mark which has a significant reputation in relation to audio visual services for unauthorized audio-visual material is not fair as the site does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant and this amounts to passing off . . . As such the panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name."); see also DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) ("Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.").

 

Complainant provides a screenshot of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, which is purportedly operated by a financial services firm under the name "BRIDGEWATER"; prominently displays a black-and-white logo that is identical or nearly identical to Complainant's logo, along with other logos in its footer and favicon that depict the yield curve and are identical or nearly identical to the logos used by Complainant; and lists Complainant's headquarters address as its own. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case based on the considerations above. All of these factors contribute to establishing a prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has neither filed a Response nor otherwise attempted to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), using a disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and offer similar or competing services may constitute evidence of bad faith attraction for commercial gain. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that passed off as the complainant and offered online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant's business). The Panel recalls the screenshot of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, which purports to operate as a financial services firm under the name "BRIDGEWATER" and offers financial services in competition with Complainant's business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because the domain name is clearly designed to exploit the brand recognition and goodwill associated with Complainant's mark. The Panel notes that Complainant's mark is well known due to its extensive and longstanding use. The use of a well-known mark to attract Internet users to a disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered and used an infringing domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a fraudulent website by exploiting the complainant's famous marks and likeness); see also Mars, Inc. v. Double Down Magazine, D2000-1644 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent linked the domain name <marssmusic.com>, which was identical to the complainant's mark, to a gambling website). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant also asserts that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark before registering the disputed domain name, given Complainant's widespread use of the mark and its trademark registrations with various trademark authorities. While constructive notice alone is generally insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, a panel may determine that a respondent had actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark and therefore registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Deep Foods, Inc. v. Jamruke, LLC, FA 648190 (Forum Apr. 10, 2006) (holding that while constructive knowledge alone is insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, circumstances indicating that a respondent had actual knowledge of a complainant's mark at the time of registration may justify such a finding); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration").

 

Based on the notoriety of Complainant's mark and the manner in which the disputed domain name is used, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. This supports a finding of bad faith registration under 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-gh.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: January 29, 2025