Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. wilson Brown / bloomberq
Claim Number: FA1704001727521
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by William M. Ried of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is wilson Brown / bloomberq (“Respondent”), Delaware, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bloomberq.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 18, 2017; the Forum received payment on April 18, 2017.
On April 19, 2017, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bloomberq.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 April 19, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 9, 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@bloomberq.com. Also on April 19, 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 May 16, 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, Bloomberg Finance L.P., is a provider of global financial news and data and related goods and services. Complainant has rights in the BLOOMBERG mark based upon multiple registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,736,744, registered July 15, 2003). Respondent’s <bloomberq.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, as it merely replaces the “g” at the end of the mark with a visually similar “q” and adds the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <bloomberq.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use the BLOOMBERG mark in any respect. Respondent has not made any use of or made any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Currently, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page indicating that the site is not in use.
Respondent has registered and used the domain name <bloomberq.com> in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive, parked webpage. Also, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLOOMBERG mark when registering the domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Bloomberg Finance L.P., is a provider of global financial news and data and related goods and services. Complainant has rights in the BLOOMBERG mark based upon multiple registrations with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 2,736,744, registered July 15, 2003). Respondent’s <bloomberq.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent, wilson Brown / bloomberq, registered the <bloomberq.com> domain name on February 2, 2017.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <bloomberq.com>. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page indicating that the site is not in use.
Respondent has registered and used the domain name <bloomberq.com> 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 has rights in the BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon multiple registrations of the mark with the USPTO. See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <bloomberq.com> is confusingly similar to the BLOOMBERG mark, as the disputed domain name merely replaces the “g” at the end of the mark with a visually similar “q” and appends the gTLD “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the BLOOMBERG mark. The WHOIS information shows “wilson Brown” of the organization “bloomberq” as registrant of the domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the <bloomberq.com> domain name. See Moneytree, Inc. v. Matt Sims / MoneyTreeNow, FA1501001602721 (Forum Mar. 3, 2015) (finding that even though the respondent had listed “Matt Sims” of “MoneyTreeNow” as registrant of the <moneytreenow.com> domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), because he had failed to list any additional affirmative evidence beyond the WHOIS information).
Respondent has not made any use of or made any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark without a demonstrable intention to make use of the disputed domain name is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 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 used the domain name <bloomberq.com> in bad faith. The failure to make an active use or show evidence of preparations of use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(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.”).
Complainant next contends that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to disrupt Complainant’s business, as there is no conceivable active use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate. Opportunistic bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) can be found where it is not possible to conceive that a respondent could make an active use of the disputed domain name that would be legitimate. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant”). Since the BLOOMBERG mark is so famous, Respondent cannot legitimately use the confusingly similar <bloomberq.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent engaged in opportunistic bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s BLOOMBGERG mark when it registered the <bloomberq.com> domain name. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (actual knowledge is a sufficient ground for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith).
Also, by replacing the “g” at the end of the mark with a visually similar “q,” Respondent engaged in typosquatting.
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 <bloomberq.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 22, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page