Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited

Claim Number: FA1804001782013


Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Brendan T. Kehoe of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA.  Respondent is Nexperian Holding Limited (“Respondent”), China.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited.



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.


Sebastian M W Hughes as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 16, 2018; the Forum received payment on April 16, 2018. The Complainant was submitted in both English and Chinese.


On April 17, 2018, HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <> domain name is registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the HiChina Zhicheng Technology 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 April 20, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes in English and Chinese, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 10, 2018 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  Also on April 20, 2018, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.


On May 22, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sebastian M W Hughes as Panelist.


Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the 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 was founded in 1981 and is the owner of the well-known trademark BLOOMBERG (the “Trademark”), registered and used since 1987 in numerous jurisdictions worldwide, in respect of Complainant’s financial news related goods and services.


The domain name comprises the Trademark in its entirety.


Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, which has been passively held.


Given the repute of the Trademark, Respondent must have known of Complainant and of its rights in the Trademark when Respondent registered the domain name. Respondent’s passive use of the domain names amounts to bad faith registration and use.


B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.




Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to transfer of the domain name.



Language of the Proceeding

Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceeding may be conducted in English.


Substantive Decision

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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory.  See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the Trademark acquired through use and registration.


The domain name incorporates the entirety of the Trademark, together with the word “voice”.


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 Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016).


The Panel therefore finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.


Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The undisputed evidence shows that the domain name has never been used.


Absent contradicting evidence in the record that a respondent was authorized to use a complainant’s mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent is presumed to lack rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006).


Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In all the circumstances, and given in particular the global notoriety of the Trademark, the Panel has no hesitation in concluding that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the Trademark. See Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Michael Bach, FA 1426668 (Forum March 2, 2012).


Having such actual knowledge, Respondent’s registration and passive use of the domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use. See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007).



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


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




Sebastian M W Hughes, Panelist

Dated:  June 4, 2018



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page