DECISION

 

Bridgewater Associates, LP v. its

Claim Number: FA2507002164435

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bridgewaterturkiey.com>, registered with Dominet (HK) Limited.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On July 8, 2025, Dominet (HK) Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bridgewaterturkiey.com> domain name is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dominet (HK) Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dominet (HK) Limited 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 July 9, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 29, 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@bridgewaterturkiey.com. Also on July 9, 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 July 30, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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

Complainant states that, founded by now-billionaire Ray Dalio in 1975, it is a renowned investment management firm that manages billions in global investments for a wide variety of clients world-wide. Complainant is today the world's largest hedge fund. Complainant has rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark through its registration in the United States in 2000.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BRIDGEWATER mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the misspelled geographic term "Turkiey" (a misspelling of either the English term "Turkey", or of the official term "Turkiye") together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Respondent has not been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use its mark. Respondent's use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and to purport to offer competing services. Specifically, the resolving website: (1) offers purported financial services that are identical or closely related to services provided by Complainant; (2) offers such purported services under Complainant's name and mark; (3) used a logo that is identical to Complainant's logo ; (4) used language to describe its services that is identical to language from Complainant's authorized website (merely translated into Turkish) ; and (5) used photos and layout from Complainant's legitimate website without authorization. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and offer competing services. Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time of registration.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark BRIDGEWATER and uses it to promote investment services.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 2000.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2025.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain name is used to impersonate Complainant and to purport to offer competing financial services; the resolving website displays Complainant's mark and material copied from Complainant's legitimate website. The WHOIS information is false.

 

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

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's BRIDGEWATER mark in its entirety and merely adds the misspelled geographic term "Turkiey" (a misspelling of either the English term "Turkey", or of the official term "Turkiye") together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or a geographic term is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates, even if the geographic term is misspelled. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Fight Club New York v. (Name Redacted), FA 1836155 (Forum Apr. 26, 2019) ("The Panel accepts that the addition of a geographic term or place name does not alter the underlying trademark or negate the confusing similarity and it does not sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain name from that trademark."); see also Milliman, Inc v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org/Zhichao Yang, D2018-2178 (WIPO, Nov. 17, 2018) (finding that the addition of "benefis", "bennefits", "bnefits", and "benefits" does not distinguish a disputed domain name from the complainant's trademarks and ordering the transfer of <millimanbenefis.com>, <millimanbennefits.com>, <millimanbnefits.com>, and <millimannbenefits.com>); see also 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."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has not been licensed or authorized by Complainant to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as "its". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name is used to impersonate Complainant and to purport to offer competing financial services. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to pass off as a Complainant to offer competing services does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) ("In effect, Respondent attempted to pass itself off as Complainant online. Such blatant unauthorized use of Complainant's mark is evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name"); see also Bloomberg L.P v. Bloomberg Realty (India) Private Limited, FA 1439263 (Forum May 30, 2012). ("Use of a domain name which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services"); see also Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use" where "Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services."). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant to offer competing services. Under the Policy, using a disputed domain name to take advantage of the confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith"); see also Fossil, Inc. v. www.fossil-watch.org c/o Host Master, FA 335513 (Forum Nov. 9, 2004) ("Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)"); see also ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA 1761403 (Forum December 29, 2017) (Finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website where it offered competing printer products); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website displays Complainant's mark and material copied from Complainant's legitimate website. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Finally, the WHOIS information is:

Organization (English): its

Contact Person (English): its

Province (English): xg

City (English): xg

Address (English): xg

Country: Hong Kong

 

According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:

 

Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.

 

This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.

 

The addresses shown in the WHOIS are manifestly false. Thus the Panel finds that that WHOIS information is false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA1008001339545 (Forum Sept., 2010 ) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also.

 

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 <bridgewaterturkiey.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: July 30, 2025