The Complainant is Bloomberg L.P. , New York, NY, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Baltic Consultants Limited, Tortola, VIRGIN ISLANDS ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is bloombergl.com registered with Tucows.

On James P. Buchele, pursuant to Complainantís request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist. The Panelist certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on October 16, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 16, 2000.

On October 23, 2000, Tucows confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name bloombergl.com is registered with Tucows and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANNís UDRP.

On October 23, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November13, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondentís registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bloombergl.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform Rules "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forumís Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges the following:

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding.

ICANN Uniform Rule 14(b) provides that, absent exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall draw inferences, as it deems appropriate, from the failure of a party to comply with a provision or requirement of the Uniform Rules. Here, Respondent has failed to submit a response within the allotted time. As a result, all reasonable inferences asserted in the Complaint will be deemed true.

Complainant has registered at least 23 trademark and service marks containing the word BLOOMBERG on the Principal Register of the USPTO. In addition, Complainant has obtained registrations for marks containing the word BLOOMBERG in over seventy-five (75) countries worldwide. Complainant registered and has continually used the domain name bloomberg.com since 1993.

Respondent registered the domain name bloombergl.com on August 24, 2000. Internet users who mistype bloomberg.com by adding an ëlí are instantly transported to Respondentís pornographic web site, massivepink.com. Respondent is in no way affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Complainant.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

The evidence establishes that Complainant has satisfied the first UDRP element; the domain name bloombergl.com is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. First, the domain name bloombergl.com is obviously intended to prey off internet users who mistype bloomberg.com. The variation or addition of a single letter or generic word in Complainantís mark is precisely what the "Identical or Confusingly Similar" language of the ICANN Policy envisions. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Eitan Zviely, et al D2000-0273 (WIPO June 14, 2000) (finding confusing similarity between Complainantís YAHOO! mark and 37 domain names registered by Respondent incorporating the YAHOO! mark or a variant thereof).

This panel concludes that the domain name bloombergl.com is confusingly similar to Complainantís BLOOMBERG marks in accordance with ICANN Policy 4(a)(i).

It is difficult for this panel to conclude, without Respondent providing any objective evidence, that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name bloombergl.com. Nothing in the evidence before this panel indicates that Respondent is a licensee of Complainant, or that Respondent has been commonly known by bloombergl.com, or that Respondent is making a noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Instead, the evidence indicates that Respondent is using the domain name to divert internet users from Complainantís web site to a totally unrelated pornographic web site. See MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services to use a domain name for commercial gain by attracting Internet users to third party sites offering sexually explicit and pornographic material where such use is calculated to mislead consumers and to tarnish the Complainantís mark).

The Panel concludes that this use, in addition to the Respondentís failure to submit a response, reveals that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question in accordance with ICANN Policy 4(b)(ii).

Complainantís mark has a strong reputation and a high profile presence in the financial sector. Respondent is preying on Complainantís mark and the goodwill associated with it to divert internet users to its own web sites where it provides pornographic services. Such use clearly violates ICANN Policy 4(b)(iv).

Numerous other UDRP panels have found that preying on the goodwill of anotherís mark to divert internet users to pornographic sites warrants a finding of registration and use in bad faith. See Youtv, Inc. v. Alemdar, FA 94243 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent attracted users to his website for commercial gain and linked his website to pornographic websites); CCA Indust., Inc. v. Dailey, D2000-0148 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2000) (finding that "this association with a pornographic web site can itself constitute a bad faith").

Based on the above, this panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name bloombergl.com in bad faith in accordance with ICANN Policy 4(a)(iii).

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted.

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, bloombergl.com, be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.