Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Andrew Vail / Andrew W. Vail
Claim Number: FA2103001935651
Complainant is Bridgewater Associates, LP (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Andrew Vail / Andrew W. Vail (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bridgewaterconsultingcorp.us>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 6, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 6, 2021.
On March 8, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bridgewaterconsultingcorp.us> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 8, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 29, 2021 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@bridgewaterconsultingcorp.us. Also on March 8, 2021, 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 April 1, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 usTLD 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 usTLD Policy, usTLD 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
1. Respondent’s <bridgewaterconsultingcorp.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bridgewaterconsultingcorp.us> domain name.
3. Respondent registered or uses the <bridgewaterconsultingcorp.us> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant Bridgewater Associates, LP is an investment management firm that manages over $160 billion in global investments. Complainant holds a registration for the BRIDGEWATER mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,302,018, registered October 2, 2007).
Respondent registered the <bridgewaterconsultingcorp.us> domain name on January 17, 2021, and does not actively use the domain name.
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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <bridgewaterconsultingcorp.us> domain name uses the BIRDGEWATER mark and adds the generic terms “consulting” and “corp,” and the “.us” ccTLD. The addition of generic terms and a ccTLD to a complainant’s mark does not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain names] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain names and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also Farouk Systems, Inc. v. Jack King / SLB, FA 1618704 (Forum June 19, 2015) (finding, “The ccTLD “.us” designation is inconsequential to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <bridgewaterconsultingcorp.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain names and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the BRIDGEWATER mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Andrew Vail.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain names where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as “Operi Manaha,” and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent fails to make active use of <bridgewaterconsultingcorp.us>. Failing to make use of a disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv). See Vivendi Universal v. Sallen, D2001-1121 (WIPO Nov. 7, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests from the respondent's alleged "free speech" use of the domain name <vivendiuniversalsucks.com>, which fully incorporated the complainant's VIVENDI UNIVERSAL mark, because the domain name was passively held). Complainant demonstrates that the <bridgewaterconsultingcorp.us> domain name is not in active use and simply resolves to a passive webpage. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <bridgewaterconsultingcorp.us> domain name in bad faith as Respondent fails to make an active use of the domain name. Failing to make use of a confusingly similar domain name constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Martineau, FA 95359 (Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (“Respondent’s failure to submit an assertion of good faith intent to use the domain name, in addition to the passive holding of the domain name, reveal that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant also contends that Respondent registered or used the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark due to the prominence of the mark. A respondent’s registration of a domain name confusingly similar to a well-known mark can demonstrate a respondent’s actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights to the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of the complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus the respondent registered the domain names in bad faith); see also Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Koch, FA 95688 (Forum Oct. 27, 2000) (“[T]he selection of a domain name [<northwest-airlines.com>] which entirely incorporates the name of the world’s fourth largest airline could not have been done in good faith”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bridgewaterconsultingcorp.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 5, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page