URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

Bloomberg Finance LP v. Chen Yu et al.

Claim Number: FA1703001721805

 

DOMAIN NAME

<bloomberg.store>

 

PARTIES

Complainant: †Bloomberg Finance LP of New York, New York,

United States of America.

Complainant Representative:† Wm. M. Ried

 

Respondent: †Chen Yu of chang chun shi, ji lin, International, CN.

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registries: †DotStore Inc.

Registrars: †Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)

 

EXAMINER

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.

 

Terry F. Peppard as Examiner.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: March 15, 2017

Commencement: March 16, 2017†††

Default Date: March 31, 2017

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") for giving to Respondent notice of the commencement of this proceeding and an opportunity to respond.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name <bloomberg.store> be suspended for the life of its registration.

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Clear and convincing evidence.

 

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION

 

Although Respondent has defaulted by failing to respond to the Complaint filed in this proceeding within the time allowed and in the manner prescribed by the Procedure, URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires that Complainant make out a prima facie showing, by clear and convincing evidence, on each of the following issues in order to obtain an determination that a domain name should be suspended:

 

1.    The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that it is in current use; and

2.    Respondent has no right to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; and

3.    The same domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.

In its Complaint, Complainant shows, inter alia, that:

 

a.  †Complainant holds a valid national registration for the trademark and service mark BLOOMBERG, on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (ďUSPTOĒ) as Registry No. 3,430,969, registered May 20, 2008, and renewed May 14, 2013, in International Class 009 [which may be described in brief as relating to computers and computer programs for use in accessing information databases in, among others, the realms of news, business, finance and securities markets];

b.  †the BLOOMBERG mark is in current use by Complainant;

c.  †the domain name <bloomberg.store> held by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainantís BLOOMBERG mark;

d.  †Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the BLOOMBERG mark;

e.  ††Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name;

f.   ††Respondentís only employment of the domain name is to host on a†† resolving website advertising links to the websites of third parties;

g.  †Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;† and

h.  †Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the BLOOMBERG mark when it registered the domain name.†

Respondent does not dispute any of this.

 

We conclude from the undisputed facts presented that Complainant has rights in the BLOOMBERG mark by reason of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the USPTO;† that the mark is in current use by Complainant;† that Respondentís <bloomberg.store> domain name is confusingly similar to the BLOOMBERG mark under the standards of the Procedure;† that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, but is instead attempting to profit commercially from the confusing similarity between the domain name and the BLOOMBERG mark;† that Respondentís use of the domain name must tend to disrupt Complainantís business;† that Respondentís use of the domain name demonstrates that it has neither any right to nor any legitimate interest in the domain name;† and that Respondent both registered and now uses the domain name in bad faith.†††

 

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

 

There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contains material falsehoods.

 

DETERMINATION

Upon review of Complainantís uncontested submissions, the Examiner finds that

Complainant has adequately demonstrated all three required elements of the URS by clear and convincing evidence.† Accordingly, the Examiner hereby Orders that the domain name <bloomberg.store> be SUSPENDED for the duration of its registration.

Terry F. Peppard, Examiner

Dated:† April 4, 2017

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page