Bloombergonline.net

The timeline behind bloombergonline.net

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.

DECISION Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Natasha Harenkova / nocompany Claim Number: FA1501001602544 PARTIES Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by William M. Ried of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is Natasha Harenkova / nocompany (“Respondent”), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bloombergonline.net>, registered with Register.com, Inc. 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. The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 29, 2015; the Forum received payment on January 29, 2015. On February 2, 2015, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bloombergonline.net> domain name is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com, 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 February 3, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 2015 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@bloombergonline.net. Also on February 3, 2015, 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 Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 27, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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" 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 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 A. Complainant Complainant made the following contentions Complainant owns the BLOOMBERG mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,736,744, registered July 15, 2003). Complainant uses the BLOOMBERG mark in connection with its goods and services related to financial news and data. The <bloombergonline.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the BLOOMBERG mark. The domain name contains the Complainant’s mark in full, inserts the generic term “online,” and adds the generic top-level domain “.net” to the domain name. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, as the WHOIS record for <bloombergonline.net> does not reflect that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name in dispute. Further, Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the BLOOMBERG mark. Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the <bloombergonline.net> domain name is made evident by Respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate or noncommercial or fair use. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the <bloombergonline.net> domain name. Complainant has a strong reputation and substantial consumer recognition and goodwill. As such, Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark leads to the conclusion that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s mark before registering the domain name, which is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. Complainant is a United States company engaged in the media and in the provision of goods and services related to financial news and data. 2. Complainant owns the BLOOMBERG mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,736,744, registered July 15, 2003. 3. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 9, 2014. It does not resolve to an inactive website. 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 The first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant owns the BLOOMBERG mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,736,744, registered July 15, 2003). Complainant uses the BLOOMBERG mark in connection with its goods and services related to financial news and data. The Panel concludes that Complainant’s valid registration of the BLOOMBERG mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”). The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark. Complainant asserts the <bloombergonline.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the BLOOMBERG mark. The domain name contains the Complainant’s mark in full, inserts the generic term “online,” and adds the generic top-level domain “.net” to the domain name. Prior panels have found that inserting generic terms does not adequately differentiate the disputed domain name from the registered mark. See Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 7, 2004) (finding the respondent’s <amextravel.com> domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMEX mark because the “mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate” a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Further, previous panels have found that the addition of a gTLD is insignificant when determining confusing similarity. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). This Panel agrees that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is now well established that 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.”). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations: (a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s BLOOMBERG trademark and to use it in its domain name, adding only the generic expression “online”; (b) Respondent registered and has retained the domain name without the consent or approval of Complainant; (c) Complainant submits that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, as the WHOIS record for <bloombergonline.net> does not reflect that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name in dispute. The Panel notes that the WHOIS record lists “Natasha Harenkova” as the registrant of record. Further, Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the BLOOMBERG mark. See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <lilpunk.com> domain name as there was no evidence in the record showing that the respondent was commonly known by that domain name, including the WHOIS information as well as the complainant’s assertion that it did not authorize or license the respondent’s use of its mark in a domain name). The Panel agrees that these contentions are sufficient to establish Respondent’s lack of rights in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); (d) Complainant contends Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the <bloombergonline.net> domain name is made evident by Respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate or noncommercial or fair use. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. See Compl., at Attached Ex. G. Past panels have found that inactive holding of a domain name does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (finding that a respondent’s non-use of a domain name that is identical to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). As Respondent here has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish. Registration and Use in Bad Faith It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and has been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons. First, While Complainant does not make any contentions that fall within the articulated provisions of Policy ¶ 4(b), the Panel notes that these provisions are meant to be merely illustrative of bad faith, and that Respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by ancillary allegations considered under the totality of the circumstances. See CBS Broad., Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (“[T]he Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith”). Accordingly, Complainant asserts Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the <bloombergonline.net> domain name. Complainant has a strong reputation and substantial consumer recognition and goodwill. As such, Complainant argues that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark leads to the conclusion that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s mark before registering the domain name, which is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel notes that that any arguments of bad faith based on constructive notice are irrelevant, however, because prior UDRP decisions have declined to find bad faith as a result of constructive knowledge. See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy."). The Panel agrees with Complainant, however, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name and finds that actual knowledge is adequate evidence of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and that it is evident in the present case. See Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Michael Bach, FA 1426668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 2, 2012) (“Although Complainant has not submitted evidence indicating actual knowledge by Respondent of its rights in the trademark, the Panel finds that, due to the fame of Complainant’s [VICTORIA’S SECRET] mark, Respondent had actual notice at the time of the domain name registration and therefore registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Secondly, in order to satisfy both the bad faith registration and the bad faith use prongs envisioned under Policy ¶ 4(b), the Panel finds it prudent to consider Complainant’s allegation of Respondent’s inactive use as evidence, not just indicative of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests, but of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use as well. See Compl., at Attached Ex. G. Prior panels have found evidence of bad faith where the respondent failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name. See Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith). The Panel concludes that Respondent’s inactive holding of the disputed domain name provides further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Thirdly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration and retention of the disputed domain name using the BLOOMBERG mark, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bloombergonline.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC, Panelist Dated: March 12, 2015 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.