Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Michael Kukov
Claim Number: FA2301002026165
Complainant is Bridgewater Associates, LP (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., USA. Respondent is Michael Kukov (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bridgewater.team>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 3, 2023; Forum received payment on January 3, 2023.
On January 3, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bridgewater.team> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 January 4, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 24, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bridgewater.team. Also on January 4, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 26, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Bridgewater Associates, LP, is an investment management firm.
Complainant has rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark through numerous trademark registrations, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <bridgewater.team> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the BRIDGEWATER mark as it incorporates the entire mark with the mere addition of the “.team” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <bridgewater.team> domain name since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent confuses internet users as to the source or affiliation of the domain name, passing off as Complainant and redirecting users back to Complainant’s operative website. Further, Respondent causes initial interest confusion and could not have registered the disputed domain name for any reason other than to trade on Complainant’s goodwill. Lastly, Respondent had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s use and registration of the BRIDGEWATER mark.
Respondent registered and uses the <bridgewater.team> domain name in bad faith. Respondent could not have registered the mark for any reason other than to deceive users and capitalize on Complainant’s goodwill. Respondent is also passing off as Complainant and confusing users as to the source or affiliation of the domain name. Finally, Respondent had constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the BRIDGEWATER trademark.
Respondent passes itself off as Complainant via its confusingly similar or identical domain name and by directing the domain name to Complainant’s legitimate website.
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.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The at-issue domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the BRIDGEWATER mark with the USPTO, as well as any of its other government trademark registrations worldwide, demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also, Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) (“Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s at-issue domain name contains Complainant’s entire BRIDGEWATER trademark followed by the “.team” top level domain name. The differences between Respondent’s <bridgewater.team> domain name and Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER trademark are insufficient to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <bridgewater.team> domain name is confusingly similar or identical to Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, FA 1738263 (Forum July 27, 2017) (“When a respondent’s domain name incorporates a mark in its entirety and merely adds a generic top-level domain (gTLD), “.com”, then the Panel may find that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark.”)
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademarks in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and “Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.”).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Michael Kukov” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <bridgewater.team> domain name or by BRIDGEWATER. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s <bridgewater.team> domain name directs internet traffic to Complainant’s website. Such use of the domain name does not indicate a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <bridgewater.team> domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii) respectively and thus fails to show rights or legitimate interests in the <bridgewater.team> domain name. See Better Existence with HIV v. AAA, FA 1363660 (Forum Jan. 25, 2011) (finding that “even though the disputed domain name still resolves to Complainant’s own website, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in its own name fails to create any rights or legitimate interests in Respondent associated with the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)”); See also Morgan Stanley v. Doniqish Doniqish, FA 1898199 (Forum June 24, 2020) (“Redirecting Internet users to the Complainant’s website without the Complainant’s authorization is not bona fide use or legitimate noncommercial fair use”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <bridgewater.team> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses its trademark identical <bridgewater.team> domain name to direct internet traffic to Complainant’s website. The confusion created by Respondent’s trademark identical domain name and its direction to Complainant’s genuine website may be further exploited via the use of fraudulent email originating from <bridgewater.team> aimed at tricking third parties into doing Respondent’s self-serving felonious bidding. Likewise, Respondent may later direct the domain name to a website that directly exploits the confusion it created regarding Complainant’s trademark for Respondent’s benefit. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name in this manner shows Respondent’s intent to disingenuously pose as Complainant to capitalize on Complainant’s BRIDGEWATER mark and further indicates bad faith registration and use of <bridgewater.team> under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iv) and otherwise. See Morgan Stanley v. Doniqish Doniqish, FA 1898199 (Forum June 24, 2020) (“Redirecting a domain name containing the Complainant’s trade mark to the Complainant’s own web site in these circumstances is bad faith registration and use”); see also, Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”).
Moreover, Respondent registered <bridgewater.team> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the BRIDGEWATER mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the worldwide notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s direction of the at-issue domain name to Complainant’s genuine website. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's BRIDGEWATER trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used <bridgewater.team> in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bridgewater.team> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: January 26, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page