Bloomberginteractive.com

The timeline behind bloomberginteractive.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.

DECISION Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Robert Hoffman Claim Number: FA1510001643371 PARTIES Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by William M. Ried of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is Robert Hoffman ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bloomberginteractive.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. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 21, 2015; the Forum received payment on October 21, 2015. On October 21, 2015, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <bloomberginteractive.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 22, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 12, 2015 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bloomberginteractive.com. Also on October 22, 2015, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 November 16, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 is one of the largest providers of global financial news and data, with more than 300,000 subscribers, 15,000 employees, and 150 offices worldwide. Complainant adopted the BLOOMBERG name in 1987, and holds registrations for BLOOMBERG and related marks in over one hundred countries. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <bloomberginteractive.com>, registered by Respondent in May 2014, is confusingly similar to Complainant's BLOOMBERG mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In support thereof, Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the Bloomberg name, and that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use Complainant's mark. Complainant states further that the disputed domain name points to a website containing links to third-party advertising websites. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. 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 disputed domain name corresponds to Complainant's registered BLOOMBERG mark, with the generic term "interactive" and the ".com" top-level domain appended thereto. These additions do not diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Bloomberg L.P. v Virtuality a/k/a Now Corp a/k/a rahndo, FA 97095 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 31, 2001) (finding <bloombergnow.com> confusingly similar to BLOOMBERG); Nat'l Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. David Crawford, Jr., D2001-1338 (WIPO Jan. 20, 2002) (finding <nascarinteractive.com> confusingly similar to NASCAR). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark without authorization, and the domain name resolves to a page containing advertising links. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that the domain name was acquired "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 [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent'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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." These instances set forth in paragraph 4(b) are illustrative rather than exhaustive, and bad faith may be found based upon other circumstances in appropriate cases. See Robert Half Int'l Inc. v. Mark Schacht, FA 1622554 (Forum July 8, 2015); Hotel Plaza Ltd., Parkroyal Hospitality Management Pte Ltd. (PHM) v. DomainWorks Inc./PARKROYAL.COM c/o Whois IDentity Shield/Vertical Axis, Inc., D2008-1760 (WIPO Mar. 18, 2009). Furthermore, a domain name may be so closely connected with a well-known trademark that its very use suggests opportunistic bad faith. See, e.g., Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Guo Mian, FA 1619037 (Forum June 12, 2015) (finding opportunistic bad faith in registration of <bloombergdata.net>); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Joel Moman, FA 1565549 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2014) (finding opportunistic bad faith in registration of <lockheedaspen.com>). The disputed domain name resolves to what appears to be a placeholder or "parked" page served by the Registrar, containing links to various third-party websites. The content of a website to which a domain name resolves is normally attributed to the registrant of the domain name for purposes of assessing bad faith under the Policy, even where control over the website has been delegated to a third party. However, where the website in question is merely a default placeholder page generated by the registrar and there is no indication that the domain name registrant is profiting thereby, it may be inappropriate to infer bad faith based upon the content of the website. See AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Anjana Madaan, FA 1518729 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2013). Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the disputed domain name. In the absence of any explanation from Respondent, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant's well-known mark, most likely either by selling the domain name or by using it to attract Internet users seeking Complainant, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose. See, e.g., Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Guo Mian, supra (finding bad faith where respondent had not made any active use of domain name); cf. Capital One Financial Corp. v. C W, FA 1542251 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2014) (finding bad faith where domain name resolved to a blank web page). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bloomberginteractive.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: November 18, 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.