Bloombergtradingai.com

The timeline behind bloombergtradingai.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.

UDRP Decision: Claim Number FA2607002232373 DECISION Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Yared Ayalew Claim Number: FA2607002232373 PARTIES Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Madeline Kessler of Bloomberg L.P., New York, United States. Respondent is Yared Ayalew ("Respondent"), United States. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <bloombergtradingai.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Name.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. David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 13, 2026. On July 14, 2026, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bloombergtradingai.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, Inc. registration agreement, which is in the English language, 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"). Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on July 17, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information. On July 21, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 10, 2026 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@bloombergtradingai.com. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. On August 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant alleges: That, since the inception of its business in 1981 and the adoption of the "Bloomberg" name in 1987, Complainant has become one of the largest providers of global financial news and data and is recognized and trusted worldwide as a leading source of financial information and analysis. Among Complainant's products and services is the Bloomberg Terminal service, which provides access to news, analytics, communications, charts, and trading services and currently has over 350,000 subscribers worldwide. Complainant is headquartered in New York City and employs 26,000 people in 159 locations around the world. That it owns registrations for the trademark and service mark BLOOMBERG in Chile, the Czech Republic, and South Korea, and that its subsidiary, Bloomberg Finance One L.P., has obtained at least forty-five additional United States registrations for marks containing the word BLOOMBERG. Complainant and its affiliated companies have obtained registrations for marks containing the word BLOOMBERG in over one hundred countries. Complainant also owns the domain names <bloomberg.com>, registered September 29, 1993 and in continuous use since that time, and <bloomberg.net>, registered March 8, 1997, together with over 4,000 other domain names incorporating the word "bloomberg." That Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <bloombergtradingai.com> on May 15, 2026, and that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BLOOMBERG mark because it fully incorporates the mark and adds only the phrase "trading ai." The website previously resolving from the Disputed Domain Name held itself out as "Bloomberg" and as "AI-Powered Institutional Trading Infrastructure" with a "Terminal" platform and a "Bloomberg App," listed Complainant, among other well-known financial companies, as a strategic partner, and included a "Bloomberg Media Ecosystem" page containing links to Complainant's main website at <bloomberg.com> and to four of Complainant's social media accounts. That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use Complainant's marks or to register any domain name incorporating them, and there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Bloomberg name. On May 20, 2026, Complainant sent a contact request to Respondent through the Registrar's contact facility; Respondent never replied. The website previously resolving from the Disputed Domain Name impersonated Complainant, and its content indicates that Respondent was likely using it to acquire the personal and financial information of third parties. Neither that use, nor Respondent's present inactive holding of the Disputed Domain Name, is a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. That Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to impersonate Complainant and attempt to acquire the personal information of third parties. Respondent was aware of Complainant's marks before registering the Disputed Domain Name, given Complainant's strong reputation and high-profile presence in the financial and media sectors and Respondent's numerous uses of Complainant's marks. Respondent's current inactive holding of the Disputed Domain Name, and its failure to reply to Complainant's contact request, are further evidence of bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following: Complainant holds registrations for the BLOOMBERG trademark and service mark, including Chilean Reg. Nos. 1035931, 1226380, and 1226381; Czech Reg. Nos. 257639 and 216914; and South Korean registrations including Reg. Nos. 113526 and 389613. Copies of the registration certificates appear in the record. A schedule in the record further shows numerous United States registrations for BLOOMBERG and BLOOMBERG-formative marks held by Complainant's subsidiary, Bloomberg Finance One L.P., including BLOOMBERG, U.S. Reg. No. 2,736,744, registered July 15, 2003, and U.S. Reg. No. 3,430,969, registered May 20, 2008. The WHOIS records in evidence show that Complainant registered <bloomberg.com> on September 29, 1993 and <bloomberg.net> on March 8, 1997. On the uncontested record, Complainant has traded under the "Bloomberg" name since 1987 and is among the largest providers of global financial news and data; excerpts from Complainant's company webpage in the record state that the Bloomberg Terminal service has over 350,000 subscribers worldwide. The WHOIS record shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on May 15, 2026 and was registered through a privacy service. The Registrar's verification of July 14, 2026 discloses the underlying registrant as Yared Ayalew, giving the address "new york, new your, NY 00000, US" and a telephone number with a non-United States dialing prefix. The disclosed postal address is facially incomplete. Screenshots in the record, captured on July 9 and July 13, 2026, show that the Disputed Domain Name then resolved to a website (the "Respondent's Website") presenting itself as "Bloomberg" and advertising "AI-Powered Institutional Trading Infrastructure," a "Terminal" platform, and a "Bloomberg App." The Respondent's Website listed Complainant, among other well-known financial companies, as a purported strategic partner, and included a "Bloomberg Media Ecosystem" page linking to Complainant's own website at <bloomberg.com> and to Complainant's social media accounts. The screenshots further show that visitors could not meaningfully interact with the Respondent's Website without creating an account or connecting a personal Google account, and that the services listed on the site would be detailed only upon submission of personal information. The Disputed Domain Name no longer resolves to an active website. Nothing in the record indicates that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or has been authorized by Complainant to use the BLOOMBERG mark, and on the uncontested record Complainant's contact request of May 20, 2026, sent through the Registrar's contact facility, went unanswered. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing the complaint, notwithstanding the respondent's default, where the complainant failed to produce clear evidence supporting its subjective allegations); see also WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The record establishes Complainant's registered rights in the BLOOMBERG mark, including the Chilean, Czech, and South Korean registrations described in the FINDINGS above. A nationally or regionally registered trademark prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having rights for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.2.1. The Disputed Domain Name <bloombergtradingai.com> incorporates the BLOOMBERG mark in its entirety and adds the terms "trading" and "ai," which describe the very services the Respondent's Website purported to offer, together with the ".com" gTLD. Added terms of this kind do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, and the gTLD is disregarded as a technical requirement of registration. See Bloomberg Fin. L.P. v. Protection of Private Person, FA 1763459 (Forum Feb. 22, 2018) (finding <bloombergcrypto.com> confusingly similar to the BLOOMBERG mark, which it contained in its entirety with the added descriptive term "crypto"); PULSUP LTD v. Eugene Gonzales, FA 2169606 (Forum Sept. 2, 2025) (the addition of a generic word naming the goods or services offered under the mark does not negate confusing similarity); WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.1. The Registrar's verification identifies the registrant as "Yared Ayalew," a name bearing no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name, and nothing in the record suggests that Complainant licensed or authorized Respondent to use the BLOOMBERG mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where the WHOIS identified a registrant name bearing no resemblance to the domain name and nothing in the record suggested authorization to use the mark). Nor was Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. As found above, the Respondent's Website assumed Complainant's identity: it traded under the "Bloomberg" name, advertised a "Terminal" trading platform echoing Complainant's own Bloomberg Terminal service, and presented Complainant's website and social media accounts as parts of its own "Bloomberg Media Ecosystem," while soliciting personal information from visitors as a condition of access. As the panel held in a recent proceeding brought by Complainant, "[t]he use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers goods or services that compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant." Bloomberg Fin. L.P. v. Lar David, FA 2221384 (Forum June 6, 2026). Respondent's present passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name likewise confers no rights or legitimate interests. Complainant has made its prima facie case, and Respondent has not rebutted it. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The content of the Respondent's Website itself shows that Respondent knew of Complainant when it registered the Disputed Domain Name: Respondent branded the site "Bloomberg," advertised a "Terminal" platform, and linked to Complainant's own website and social media accounts. BLOOMBERG is, moreover, a coined term. As the panel observed in Bloomberg Fin. L.P. v. Erin Millercan, FA 2113874 (Forum Oct. 3, 2024), "the BLOOMBERG mark is unique, a coined term which has no meaning apart from its association with Complainant. It is not likely to be selected for inclusion in a domain name by someone other than Complainant except to target this Complainant." The Panel finds, consistent with WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.1.4, that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on May 15, 2026 with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the widely-known BLOOMBERG mark. Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to pass itself off as Complainant and to draw Internet users into submitting personal information on the strength of that false identity. Such use intentionally attracts Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's Website, and evidences bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). On closely comparable facts, the panel found bad faith where the respondent was "using the domain name for a misleading and likely fraudulent website that attempts to pass off as Complainant and promotes similar services." Bloomberg Fin. L.P. v. Lar David, FA 2220962 (Forum June 4, 2026). That the Disputed Domain Name no longer resolves to an active website does not assist Respondent, as failure to resolve a disputed domain name to an active website itself indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Dari Darling, FA 1965150 (Forum Oct. 27, 2021) (failure to resolve a disputed domain name to an active website indicates bad faith). The facially incomplete postal address and mismatched telephone details disclosed in the Registrar's verification, and Respondent's silence in the face of Complainant's May 20, 2026 contact request, corroborate the Panel's conclusion on this record. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <bloombergtradingai.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: August 11, 2026 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.