URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Bloomberg L.P. v. Marketing Team
Claim Number: FA1608001689519


DOMAIN NAME

<bloombergbusinessweeklink.stream>
 <bloombergbusinessweeknetwork.stream>
 <bloombergpage.stream>
 <bloombergvisit.stream>
 <bloombergwork.stream>
 <workbloomberg.stream>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Bloomberg L.P. William M. Ried of New York, NY, United States of America
  

   Respondent: Marketing Team of nampa, ID, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: dot Stream Limited
   Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.

EXAMINER


   The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
   Natalia Stetsenko, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: August 18, 2016
   Commencement: August 19, 2016
   Default Date: September 6, 2016
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

RELIEF SOUGHT


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW


   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION



   Findings of Fact: The Complainant has established its trademark rights in the BLOOMBERG trademark based on its US Registration Number 3430969. The validity and use are confirmed by respective entries at the Trademark Clearinghouse.

  

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.


[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


1. The disputed six domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark, since they incorporate the Complainant’s mark in its entirety adding only the generic terms, such as “business week link”, “business week network”, “page”, “visit”, “work”, each of which directly or indirectly associates with the Complainant’s activities, and the TLD “.stream”, which does not render the mark any less recognizable.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


2. Given that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its BLOOMBERG mark or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the BLOOMBERG mark; based on the WHOIS records, the Respondent cannot be recognized as commonly known by the name “Bloomberg.”; and that the Respondent’s domain names resolve to non-functioning websites, which does not qualify for a bona fide offering of goods and services, it is found that the Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name 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 documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’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 Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


In view of the reputation associated with the Complainant’s trademarks, it is hard to believe that the domain names in question were chosen and registered for any other purpose than taking unfair advantage over the goodwill and reputation associated with the mark. Previous panels have routinely found bad faith in circumstances where it is unlikely the registrant would have selected the domain name without knowing the reputation of the well-known trademark in question.


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. bloombergbusinessweeklink.stream
  2. bloombergbusinessweeknetwork.stream
  3. bloombergpage.stream
  4. bloombergvisit.stream
  5. bloombergwork.stream
  6. workbloomberg.stream

 

Natalia Stetsenko
Examiner
Dated: September 7, 2016

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page