Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Balticsea LLC
Claim Number: FA1401001539704
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by William M. Ried of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is Balticsea LLC (“Respondent”), Russia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bloombergbrief.com>, registered with Tucows, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 17, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on January 17, 2014.
On January 17, 2014, Tucows, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bloombergbrief.com> domain name is registered with Tucows, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows, 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 January 21, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 10, 2014 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@bloombergbrief.com. Also on January 21, 2014, 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 February 13, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is the owner of the trademark BLOOMBERG, which is registered in the United States, Chile, and South Korea. Complainant states that its corporate parent, Bloomberg L.P., has been in business since 1981 and has operated under the name “Bloomberg” in the United States and around the world since at least as early as 1987. Complainant and its affiliated companies use and have obtained registrations for marks containing the word BLOOMBERG in over one hundred countries. Complainant and its affiliates comprise one of the largest providers of global financial news and data and related goods and services. Complainant cites a 2004 article stating that its BLOOMBERG mark was among the most well-known marks in the world.
Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name, <bloombergbrief.com>, registered in 2012. Complainant contends that this domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website containing advertising links to third-party finance-related websites. Complainant alleges that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant states that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark. Complainant further asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the Bloomberg name, and that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial fair use of the domain name. On these grounds Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. In further support thereof, Complainant states that it has a strong reputation and high-profile presence in the financial and media sectors, that is the subject of substantial consumer recognition and goodwill, and that it has used its own <bloomberg.com> domain name continuously since 1993. Complainant alleges that Respondent must have been aware of Complainant’s mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
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 disputed domain name combines Complainant’s famous trademark with the generic term “brief” and the top-level domain suffix “.com”. These additions do not diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Seiko Holdings Kabushiki Kaisha v. Travis, D2013-0994 (WIPO Aug. 6, 2013) (finding <seikobrief.com> confusingly similar to SEIKO). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark without authorization, and apparently its sole use has been in connection with a website that contains advertising links related to Complainant’s industry. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Individual c/o Cisneros, FA1313483 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 22, 2010) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests in similar circumstances). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that “by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent’s] web site or location.”
Respondent’s registration of a domain name incorporating Complainant’s well-known mark and the use of that domain name to display links to competing third parties are indicative of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Individual c/o Cisneros, supra. The Panel so finds.
Having considered the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bloombergbrief.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: February 17, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page