Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. philip douthit
Claim Number: FA1702001715662
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by William M. Ried of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is philip douthit (“Respondent”), Connecticut, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bloomberg-data.com>, registered with Domain.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he acted independently and impartially and, to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 2, 2017; the Forum received payment on February 2, 2017.
On February 2, 2017, Domain.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bloomberg-data.com> domain name(s) is registered with Domain.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domain.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domain.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 February 3, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 2017 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-data.com. Also on February 3, 2017, 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 March 6, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 is one of the largest providers of global financial news and data and related goods and services. Complainant owns the BLOOMBERG mark through numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2736744, registered July 15, 2003). The <bloomberg-data.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark, as Respondent has simply attached a hyphen, the generic term “data” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the mark.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <bloomberg-data.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name as evidenced by the available WHOIS information for the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name.
Respondent has registered and used the <bloomberg-data.com> domain name in bad faith. Due to Complainant’s strong reputation and high-profile present in the financial and media sectors, Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark when registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Bloomberg Finance L.P., is one of the largest providers of global financial news and data and related goods and services. Complainant owns rights in the BLOOMBERG mark through numerous trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2736744, registered July 15, 2003). The <bloomberg-data.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark.
Respondent, philip douthit, registered the <bloomberg-data.com> domain name on April 14, 2016.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <bloomberg-data.com> domain name. Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name.
Respondent has registered and used the <bloomberg-data.com> domain name 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(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.”).
Complainant owns rights in the BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through numerous trademark registrations with the USPTO. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark. . . .”).
Respondent’s <bloomberg-data.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), as Respondent has simply attached a hyphen, the generic term “data” and the gTLD “.com” to the mark.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the BLOOMBERG mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the <bloomberg-data.com> domain name. The WHOIS information lists “philip douthit” as registrant of the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name).
Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <bloomberg-data.com> domain name. Respondent has failed to make an active use of the domain name. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Respondent has registered and is using the <bloomberg-data.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLOOMBERG mark when registering the disputed domain name. Therefore, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration.”).
Respondent has also failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name, which is bad faith.
Complainant 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-data.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 18, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page