Bloomberg-com.com

The timeline behind bloomberg-com.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Hildegard Gruener Claim Number: FA1310001522367 PARTIES Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by William M. Ried of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is Hildegard Gruener (“Respondent”), Austria. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bloomberg-com.com>, registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC. PANEL 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. Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 2, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on October 2, 2013. On October 2, 2013, GODADDY.COM, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <bloomberg-com.com> domain name is registered with GODADDY.COM, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GODADDY.COM, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GODADDY.COM, LLC 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 October 3, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 23, 2013 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@bloomberg-com.com. Also on October 3, 2013, 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, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On October 29, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS Complainant a) Complainant has been in business since 1981 and adopted the “Bloomberg” name in 1987. Complainant has become one of the largest providers of global financial news and date related to goods and services. Complainant employs more than 15,000 people in 150 offices around the world. Complainant’s mark is considered the 19th most well-known mark in the world. b) Complainant contends it has rights in the BLOOMBERG mark, used in connection with financial news and data services. Complainant is the owner of registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,736,744 registered July 15, 2003). c) Respondent’s <bloomberg-com.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark. The disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s mark while adding the word “com.” d) Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bloomberg-com.com> domain name. 1. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its BLOOMBERG mark in any way. 2. The <bloomberg-com.com> domain name resolves to a website offering finance and investment related advice. e) Respondent registered and is using the <bloomberg-com.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark prior to registering the disputed domain name because Complainant’s mark is well-known around the world and Complainant’s own <bloomberg.com> domain name has been in use since 1993. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS For reasons set forth below, the Panel finds Complainant is entitled to the relief requested. DISCUSSION 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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also 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.”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant contends it has rights in the BLOOMBERG mark, used in connection with financial news and data services. Complainant states it is the owner of registrations with the USPTO (See, e.g., Reg. No. 2,736,744 registered July 15, 2003). Past panels have determined that a complainant need not own a registration in a respondent’s country of operation, and it is sufficient that a complainant own a registration in a different country. See Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that it is irrelevant whether the complainant has registered its trademark in the country of the respondent’s residence). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Santos, FA 565685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2005) (finding trademark registration with the USPTO was adequate to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant next alleges that Respondent’s <bloomberg-com.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark. Complainant states that the disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s mark while adding the word “com.” The Panel notes that the disputed domain name includes a hyphen and the generic top-level domain (”gTLD”) “.com.” The addition of a generic term does not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a trademark. See Am. Online Inc. v. Neticq.com Ltd., D2000-1606 (WIPO Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that the addition of the generic word “Net” to the complainant’s ICQ mark, makes the <neticq.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark). The addition of a hyphen and a gTLD is irrelevant for the purposes of confusing similarity analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <bloomberg-com.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has proven this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). Complainant claims Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <bloomberg-com.com> domain name. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its BLOOMBERG mark in any way. The Panel notes that the WHOIS record for the disputed domain name lists “Hildegard Gruener” as the domain name registrant. Past panels have looked to the WHOIS record, whether the respondent was authorized to use the trademark and the evidence on record as whole in determining whether the respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). Therefore, because Respondent was not authorized by Complainant to use the BLOOMBERG mark, and neither the WHOIS information nor the other evidence on record indicates otherwise, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <bloomberg-com.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant notes that the <bloomberg-com.com> domain name resolves to a website offering finance and investment related advice. Past panels have found that using a confusingly similar domain name to compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use that would provide the respondent with a basis for claiming rights and legitimate interests in the domain. See Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <bloomberg-com.com> domain name to offer finance and investment-related advice does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Complainant has proven this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant claims Respondent registered and is using the <bloomberg-com.com> domain name in bad faith. Complainant notes that the <bloomberg-com.com> domain name resolves to a website offering finance and investment related advice. Past panels have found that using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a website that is in competition with a complainant’s own business evidences the respondent’s Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith when the respondent is acting for respondent’s own commercial gain. See MathForum.com, LLC v. Weiguang Huang, D2000-0743 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and the domain name was used to host a commercial website that offered similar services offered by the complainant under its mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <bloomberg-com.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark and competing with Complainant for Respondent’s own commercial gain. Lastly, Complainant claims that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark prior to registering the disputed domain name because Complainant’s mark is well-known around the world and Complainant’s own <bloomberg.com> domain name has been in use since 1993. The Panel here agrees and finds that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant's mark and thus registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Sears Brands, LLC v. Airhart, FA 1350469 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 2, 2010) (stating that constructive notice generally will not suffice for a finding of bad faith); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration). Complainant has proven this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <bloomberg-com.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist Dated: November 7, 2013 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.