Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Alex Player
Claim Number: FA1811001817498
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Brendan T. Kehoe of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is Alex Player ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bloomberginterview.com>, registered with 1&1 Internet SE.
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 November 21, 2018; the Forum received payment on November 21, 2018.
On November 21, 2018, 1&1 Internet SE confirmed by email to the Forum that the <bloomberginterview.com> domain name is registered with 1&1 Internet SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1&1 Internet SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1&1 Internet SE 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 November 26, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 17, 2018 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@bloomberginterview.com. Also on November 26, 2018, 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.
Respondent corresponded with the Forum by email on November 26 through 28, 2018, as described below, but did not submit a formal response. On December 20, 2018, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default and, 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 a formal response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Together with its corporate parent Bloomberg L.P. and other 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.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <bloomberginterview.com> in May 2017. The domain name is being used for a promotional website that includes references to Complainant's BLOOMBERG mark. Complainant states that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark and that Respondent is not commonly known by the name. Complainant contends on these grounds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BLOOMBERG mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a formal Response in this proceeding. In email correspondence, Respondent offered to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant. Respondent apparently also contacted the registrar in order to effect such a transfer, but was told that the domain name could not be transferred due to the pending UDRP proceeding. Respondent subsequently reiterated his willingness to relinquish the domain name and stated that "I only used the domain once for a CV when applying for a position at Bloomberg."
In light of Respondent's consent to transfer the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that Complainant is entitled to the requested transfer.
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.
Where a Respondent unilaterally consents to transfer a domain name in a proceeding under the Policy, the Panel may forego analyzing the elements set forth in the Policy and simply order a transfer of the domain name. See, e.g., EMVCO, LLC c/o Visa Holdings v. Gary Deroos, FA 1637575 (Forum Oct. 14, 2015). On the other hand, where the consent to transfer is itself offered in bad faith (for example, to permit a serial cybersquatter to avoid having adverse findings entered against it), the Panel may proceed with the traditional analysis notwithstanding the Respondent's request. See, e.g., Tommy John, Inc. v. DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM Domain Admin / Domain Registries Foundation, FA 1769865 (Forum Feb. 23, 2018).
In this case, the Panel considers it appropriate to award the relief requested by Complainant and consented to by Respondent in the interest of efficiency and expedience. The Panel therefore concludes, solely for purposes of this proceeding and without analyzing the specific requirements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that Complainant has met its burden of proving these requirements and is entitled to the relief it seeks.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bloomberginterview.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: December 24, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page