Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Anil
Claim Number: FA1705001730066
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Amin Kassam of Bloomberg L.P., New York, United States. Respondent is Anil ("Respondent"), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bloombergutv.live>, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 3, 2017; the Forum received payment on May 3, 2017.
On May 3, 2017, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to the Forum that the <bloombergutv.live> 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 May 4, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 24, 2017 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bloombergutv.live. Also on May 4, 2017, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 30, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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, together with its corporate parent, subsidiaries, and affiliated companies, is one of the largest providers of global financial news and data and related goods and services. Complainant adopted BLOOMBERG as a trade name in 1987, and owns trademark registrations for BLOOMBERG and related marks in more than 100 countries. Complainant employs 19,000 people in 192 offices around the world; its Bloomberg Professional Service has over 300,000 subscribers.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <bloombergutv.live> in April 2017. The domain name does not currently resolve to a website. Complainant states that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark. In response to a demand letter from Complainant, Respondent stated that he purchased the domain name "to prevent from wrong hands." He agreed to transfer the domain name in exchange for payment of $500. Complainant stated that it would only reimburse fees that Respondent had paid to a domain name registrar. Respondent then claimed that he had registered the domain name as a reference to the Croatian city of Bergut.
Complainant contends, on the above grounds, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 is being 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(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.").
The disputed domain name <bloombergutv.live> corresponds to Complainant's registered BLOOMBERG mark, with the addition of the letters "utv" and the ".live" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Federation Francaise de Tennis (FFT) v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Sampath Reddy, D2016-0864 (WIPO July 1, 2016) (finding <frenchopen.live> identical to FRENCH OPEN); Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. PPA Media Services / Ryan G Foo, FA 1478654 (Forum Feb. 12, 2013) (finding <utvbloomberg.com> confusingly similar to BLOOMBERG.COM). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
Under the Policy, Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's well-known mark without authorization, and Respondent does not appear to have made any use of the domain name. 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)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that the domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), 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."
The instances set forth in paragraph 4(b) are illustrative rather than exhaustive, and bad faith may be found based upon other circumstances in appropriate cases. See 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Piyush Tiw, FA 1728280 (Forum May 29, 2017). Furthermore, a domain name may be so closely connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark owner may support an inference of bad faith. See, e.g., id.
Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the disputed domain name. The explanations that Respondent has offered for his selection of the name are neither credible nor substantiated. The Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant's mark, most likely either by selling the domain name or by using it to attract Internet users seeking Complainant, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., id. (finding bad faith registration and use of <1800contacts.online> under similar circumstances). Respondent's offer to sell the domain name to Complainant for a price in excess of Respondent's actual domain name registration costs is consistent with that inference. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bloombergutv.live> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 2, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page