URS FINAL DETERMINATION
Bloomberg L.P. v. Zhang Guo Jie et al.
Claim Number: FA1609001692977
DOMAIN NAME
<businessweek.top>
PARTIES
Complainant: Bloomberg L.P. William M. Ried of New York, NY, United States of America | |
Respondent: Zhang Guo Jie Guo Jie Zhang of Pu Tian Shi, Fu Jian, II, China | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd. | |
Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) |
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. | |
Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: September 9, 2016 | |
Commencement: September 12, 2016 | |
Response Date: September 14, 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: [OptionalComment] |
URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, 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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant is the owner of US registration No. 549,742 for the word trademark BUSINESS WEEK, registered since October 23, 1951 (the "Trademark"). Complainant has also owned and used the domain name <businessweek.com> comprising the Trademark continuously since July 27, 1995. The domain name is identical to the Trademark. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent has failed to adduce any evidence to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The domain name has not been used. Respondent does not assert, in the Response, that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name, or that Respondent is making a bona fide non-commercial use of the domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has used the Trademark continuously since 1930 in respect of its financial news and information businesses. Respondent asserts that Respondent did not register the domain name for the purpose of selling it; Respondent is not using the domain name in respect of counterfeit goods or services; and Respondent has not used the domain name in order to gain pay-per-click revenue. However, in all the circumstances, including the notoriety of the Trademark, Respondent's failure to put forward a positive case to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and the fact the domain name is identical to the Trademark, the Examiner concludes that Respondent must have had Complainant and its Trademark in mind when it registered the domain name. Accordingly, bad faith registration and use has been made out. 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:
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:
|
Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page