Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Damien GRANGIENS
Claim Number: FA1709001751444
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Amin Kassam of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is Damien GRANGIENS ("Respondent"), France.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bloomberg-pro.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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 Forum electronically on September 29, 2017; the Forum received payment on September 29, 2017.
On September 29, 2017, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <bloomberg-pro.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 October 3, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 23, 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@bloomberg-pro.com. Also on October 3, 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 October 25, 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
Together with its affiliated companies, Complainant is one of the largest providers of global financial news and data and related goods and services. Complainant and its affiliated companies have operated under the BLOOMBERG name and mark since 1987, and own trademark registrations for BLOOMBERG in Chile, the Czech Republic, South Korea, the United States, and many other countries. Complainant claims that the BLOOMBERG mark is recognized worldwide, citing a 2004 article identifying it as the 19th most well-known mark in the world.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <bloomberg-pro.com> through a privacy registration service in February 2017. The domain name does not resolve to a functioning website. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the BLOOMBERG name or mark, and that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark.
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 <bloomberg-pro.com> corresponds to Complainant's registered BLOOMBERG mark, with the addition of a hyphen, the generic term "pro," and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Philip Douthit, FA 1715662 (Forum Mar. 18, 2017) (finding <bloomberg-data.com> confusingly similar to BLOOMBERG); American Int'l Group, Inc. v. AIG-Pro c/o Alvin Givens, FA 730318 (Forum July 27, 2006) (finding <aig-pro.com> confusingly similar to AIG). 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 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's famous 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 names were registered and have been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a 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)(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."
Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the disputed domain name. In the absence of any explanation from Respondent, 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 famous 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., Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Esmeralda Ortega, FA 1734794 (Forum July 5, 2017) (inferring bad faith registration and use of domain names incorporating BLOOMBERG mark under similar circumstances); Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Mazen Kassaa / Kassaa, FA 1597820 (Forum Jan. 29, 2015) (finding bad faith registration and use of BLOOMBERG-formative domain names based upon inference of intent "to improperly exploit their trademark value"). Respondent's use of a privacy registration service in an attempt to conceal his identity, though not itself dispositive, is a further indication of bad faith. See, e.g., Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Md Opu Ahmed, FA 1738306 (Forum July 27, 2017).
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 <bloomberg-pro.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: October 30, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page