Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Oliver Dobbs
Claim Number: FA2008001907865
Complainant is Bridgewater Associates, LP (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, United States. Respondent is Oliver Dobbs (“Respondent”), Hong Kong.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bridgewaterchina.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 10, 2020; the Forum received payment on August 10, 2020.
On August 11, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bridgewaterchina.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 August 17, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 2020 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@bridgewaterchina.com. Also on August 17, 2020, 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 September 10, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is a renowned investment management firm. Founded by now-billionaire Ray Dalio in 1975, Complainant manages hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of global investments for a wide variety of clients world-wide, including in China. Bridgewater today operates the world’s largest hedge fund. Complainant asserts rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark through registration of the mark with multiple trademark agencies, including in the United States in 2007.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the geographically descriptive term “China” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent’s use of the BRIDGEWATER mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to Complainant’s legitimate website.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant. Respondent registered the domain name to deceive and confuse Internet users. Respondent also had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark at the time of registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark BRIDGEWATER and uses it to market investment management services.
Complainant’s rights in its marks date back to at least 2007.
The disputed domain names were registered in 2020.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
The disputed domain name resolves to Complainant’s legitimate website.
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 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”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark in its entirety and merely adds the geographic term “China” and the “.com” gTLD. The addition of a geographic term and a gTLD is not sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Suchada Phrasaeng, FA 1745812 (Forum Sep. 28, 2017) (“Adding geographical terms does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark to prevent a finding of confusingly similarity under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”); see also Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its BRIDGEWATER mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information can be used to determine if a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name shows that the registrant’s name is “OLIVER DOBBS”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain name resolves to Complainant’s legitimate website. A respondent’s registration of a domain name that resolves to a complainant’s website fails to create any rights or legitimate interest. See Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain, FA 1337658 (Forum Sept. 8, 2010) (“The Panel finds that using Complainant’s mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant’s actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii) . . .”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or service or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
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, the disputed domain name resolves to Complainant’s website. Use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name to resolve to Complainant’s own site is registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Altavista Co. v. Brunosousa, D2002-0109 (WIPO Apr. 3, 2002) (finding, when a domain name is used to redirect to the complainant’s website, that “such redirection will allow the Respondent to divert future users to competing web sites after having built up mistaken confidence in the source of the content,” which constitutes bad faith registration and use) (emphasis omitted). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s website, thus Respondent must have known of Complainant’s mark. 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bridgewaterchina.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: September 10, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page