Complainant is Bloomberg L.P., New York, NY, USA ("Complainant") represented by Alexander Kim. Respondent is Mybloomberg.com, Daegu, Korea ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <mybloomberg.com> registered with Network Solutions.

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.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on July 2, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 2, 2001.

On July 3, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <mybloomberg.com> is registered with Network Solutions and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On July 3, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 23, 2001 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 Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@mybloomberg.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.

On July 25, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody 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." 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

The <mybloomberg.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s federally registered trademark.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <mybloomberg.com> domain name.

Respondent registered and used the <mybloomberg.com> domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

No response was received.

Since 1983, Complainant has become one of the largest providers, worldwide, of financial news and information and related services. Complainant registered the trademark and service mark BLOOMBERG, March 18, 1997, on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Registration No. 2,045,947. Complainant has also registered its BLOOMBERG mark in South Korea as early as January 5, 1998 as Registration No. 389,613, in addition to other registrations for its BLOOMBERG mark in South Korea.

Complainant is the owner of the following domain names: <bloomberg.com> registered

September 29, 1993; <bloomberg.net> registered March 8, 1997; and <bloomberg.org> registered December 14, 1999. The <bloomberg.com> domain name has been in continuous use by Complainant since its registration in 1993. In addition, Complainant has registered over 400 other domain names incorporating the word "bloomberg."

Respondent registered the <mybloomberg.com> domain name on April 3, 2001. Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain name.

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."

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the 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.

Complainant has established rights in the famous BLOOMBERG mark through its extensive and continuous use, as well as its numerous United States and South Korean registrations. Furthermore, the disputed domain name contains the generic word "my" in front of Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark. The addition of a generic word to Complainant’s mark makes the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark. See ESPN, Inc. v. MySportCenter.com, FA 95326 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that the "domain name MYSPORTSCENTER.COM registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SportsCenter mark…"); see also Infospace.com, Inc. v. Delighters, Inc., D2000-0068 (WIPO May 1, 2000) (finding that the domain name "myinfospace.com" is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Respondent has failed to come forward to demonstrate it has rights or legitimate interests in the <mybloomberg.com> domain name. See 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").

Furthermore, there is a presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to a disputed domain name where Respondent fails to submit a response. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).

Respondent’s passive holding of the <mybloomberg.com> domain name does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See American Home Prod. Corp. v. Malgioglio, D2000-1602 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <solgarvitamins.com> where Respondent merely passively held the domain name); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. Sandhu, FA 96261 (Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that no rights or legitimate interest can be found when Respondent fails to use disputed domain names in any way).

There is no evidence in the record, and Respondent has not come forward to establish that it is commonly known by the <mybloomberg.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark).

Furthermore, there is no evidence that demonstrates Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial, or fair use of the <mybloomberg.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also AltaVista v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding that use of the domain name to direct users to other, unconnected websites does not constitute a legitimate interest in the domain name).

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name further supports a finding of bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that the Respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

Furthermore, because of the famous and distinctive nature of Complainant’s BLOOMBERG marks, Respondent is thought to have been on notice of the existence of Complainant’s marks at the time Respondent registered the infringing <mybloomberg.com> domain name. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Apr. 17, 2000) (evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of commonly known mark at the time of registration).

Having established all three of the elements under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief should be hereby granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mybloomberg.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.