Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Xiaohua Dai
Claim Number: FA1207001454296
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by William M. Ried of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is Xiaohua Dai (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bloomberg-global.com>, registered with eNom, Inc.
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.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 19, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on July 23, 2012.
On July 20, 2012, eNom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bloomberg-global.com> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, Inc. 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 30, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 20, 2012 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@bloomberg-global.com. Also on July 30, 2012, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 22, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 made the following contentions.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a famous and successful United States company engaged globally in electronic trading and the provision of financial news and information.
2. Complainant owns the BLOOMBERG mark registered with the Chinese State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1125919 registered November 7, 1997), its wholly owned subsidiary Bloomberg Finance One L.P. owns many other trademarks for BLOOMBERG registered in the United States and its associated companies own many trademarks for BLOOMBERG registered globally.
3. Respondent registered the <bloomberg-global.com> domain name on March 7, 2012 and has caused it to resolve to a website featuring an add-on that may download onto users’ computers.
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(e), 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 (Nat. Arb. 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.”).
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark. Complainant argues that Respondent’s <bloomberg-global.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a) (i). The Panel notes that the disputed domain name contains the entire BLOOMBERG mark while adding a hyphen and the term “global,” as well as the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that such additions to Complainant’s mark are not sufficient to remove the disputed domain name from the realm of confusing similarity. See Gannett Co. v. Chan, D2004-0117 (WIPO Apr. 8, 2004) (“…it is well established that a domain name consisting of a well-known mark, combined with a geographically descriptive term or phrase, is confusingly similar to the mark.”); see also Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a) (i) analysis.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a) (i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a) (ii) and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a) (ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark and to use it in its domain name;
(b) Respondent has then added to the trademark the word “global” which , as it is well known that Complainant operates globally, cannot help but reinforce the notion that the disputed domain name is an official domain name of Complainant and that it will lead to an official website of Complainant;
(c) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant to use the BLOOMBERG mark in a domain name or otherwise;
(d) Further, Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the dispute domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c) (ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS information for the <bloomberg-global.com> domain name identifies “Xiaohua Dai” as the registrant. The Panel finds, upon the evidence submitted and the arguments of Complainant, that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c) (ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
(e) Further, Complainant argues that Respondent resolves the disputed domain name to an English version of a literary work entitled The Little Prince and then subsequently routes users to a website featuring an add-on that may download onto users' computers. Complainant contends that such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c) (i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c) (iii). The Panel agrees and find accordingly. See Vanderbilt Univ. v. U Inc., FA 893000 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (holding that the respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name where it was redirecting Internet users to its own website promoting the respondent’s books unrelated to the complainant).
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and has been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant argues that “Respondent has demonstrated a pattern and practice of registering domain names incorporating other famous marks that enjoy substantial reputations around the world.” Complainant notes that Respondent has registered at least 70 domain names containing the trademarks of third parties. See Complainant’s Exhibit K. Complainant asserts that Respondent’s registration of these domain names demonstrates a “disregard for the trademark rights of corporations around the world and further establishes its bad faith intent in registering <bloomberg-global.com>.” The Panel finds that Respondent’s other apparent trademark-infringing domain name registrations are evidence of a bad faith in the instant dispute under Policy ¶ 4(b) (ii). See Philip Morris Inc. v. r9.net, D2003-0004 (WIPO Feb. 28, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s previous registration of domain names such as <pillsbury.net>, <schlitz.net>, <biltmore.net> and <honeywell.net> and subsequent registration of the disputed <marlboro.com> domain name evidenced bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Assocs., FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b) (ii) by registering multiple domain names that infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks).
Secondly, Complainant alleges that Respondent must have had constructive and/or actual notice of Complainant's rights in the BLOOMBERG mark prior to registration of the domain name because of Complainant's widespread use of the mark and its trademark registrations with the USPTO. While constructive notice is generally regarded as insufficient to support a finding of bad faith, the Panel here concludes that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant's mark and thus registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a) (iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).
Thirdly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name using the BLOOMBERG mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent engaged in when using it, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bloomberg-global.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Panelist
Dated: August 22, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page