Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Bloomberg L.P., New York, NY, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Callum Maclean, Belfast, N. Ireland ("Respondent").

The domain names at issue are "bloomberg24.com", "bloomberg24.net", "bloomberg24.org", "bloomberg365.com" registered with Signature Domains, Inc.

On January 30, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist.

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as a panelist in this proceeding.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on December 26, 2000; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 26, 2000.

On January 3, 2001, Signature Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names "bloomberg24.com", "bloomberg24.net", "bloomberg24.org", "bloomberg365.com" are registered with Signature Domains, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Signature Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Signature Domains, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On January 4, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 24, 2001 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bloomberg24.com, postmaster@bloomberg24.net, postmaster@bloomberg24.org, postmaster@bloomberg365.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

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." 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 the Respondent.

The Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

On March 18, 1997, Complainant registered the trademark and service mark BLOOMBERG, in connection with a series of businesses, including computers, computer programs, financial services, entertainment services, news reporting services, publications, etc. Complainant is also the owner of the following domain names: bloomberg.com registered on September 29, 1993; bloomberg.net registered on March 8, 1997; and bloomberg.org registered on December 14, 1999. Bloomberg.com has been in continuous use by Complainant since its registration in 1993.

Complainant's substantial advertising and promotion of Complainant's mark, its BLOOMBERG family of marks, its Bloomberg trade name and its domain names has created significant goodwill and widespread consumer recognition. Since its inception in 1983, Complainant has become one of the largest providers of worldwide financial news and information and related goods and services. Complainant is recognized and trusted worldwide as a leading financial information and analysis source. Complainant is

headquartered in New York and serves clients in over one hundred countries with nine sales offices, two data centers, and seventy-eight news bureaus worldwide.

Respondent registered bloomberg365.com, bloomberg24.com, bloomberg24.net and bloomberg24.org on March 1, 2000. These domain names in dispute are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark BLOOMBERG.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in these domain names. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the Complainant's mark or any of the BLOOMBERG family of marks, nor has Complainant licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to apply for or use any domain name incorporating those

"Existing branded vertical marketplace available for franchise from the Internet's leading B2B pioneer and web strategist." Any user clicking on the "franchise info" button will be shown what the Respondent is offering for sale as franchise -- a list of domain names such as <etransact24.com>, <tradeline24.com>, <ebroker24.com>, and <newsmedia24.com>.

Respondent registered the domain names in bad faith. Complainant has a strong reputation, a high profile presence in the financial sector, and is the subject of substantial consumer recognition and goodwill. Such facts lead to the conclusion that Respondent was aware of Complainant's mark before registering the domain name listed above. Because the Respondent also engages in disseminating related news and services, the registration of the domain names is a blatant attempt to create customer confusion and

attract, for financial gain, Internet users looking for bloomberg.com or related services and products from the Complainant. Respondent is engaged in unfair competition.

see how much mileage [sic] in me using these domains, and would be pleased to pass them over to the other Mr. Bloomberg for costs plus a small 'holding fee' that represents the time and effort, and a little bit of foresight, into securing these titles." Respondent failed to evidence any out of pocket costs, or an amount in excess thereof. The respondent sought a premium over its actual costs.

B. Respondent did not make a timely response. Respondent made an out of time filing showing an attempt to settle with the Complainant after this proceeding was commenced.

The Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") state the following with regard to default cases:

In this case, Respondent has not submitted a response, and therefore this Panel may infer, for the purposes of this decision, that the averments in the complaint are true. See 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").

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."

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

The domain names in dispute are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark BLOOMBERG, because they combine the Complainant’s mark with the numbers, which are non-descriptive and add little to the domain names as a whole. See America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that adding the suffixes "502" and "520" to the ICQ trademark does little to reduce the potential for confusion); American Online Inc. v. Chinese ICQ Network, D2000-0808 (WIPO Aug. 31, 2000) (finding that the addition of the numeral "4" does nothing to deflect the impact on the viewer of the mark "ICQ" in relation to the domain name <4icq.com>).

offered by the Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); 4(c)(iii). See North Coast Medical, Inc. v Allegro Medical, FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) (finding no bona fide use where Respondent used the domain name to divert Internet users to its website); America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that "[I] t would be unconscionable to find a bona fide offering of services in a respondent’s operation of web-site using a domain name which is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and for the same business).

The domain names in dispute were registered in bad faith due to the fact that Respondent’s registration of the domain names appears to be a part of a pattern of behavior. Policy ¶ 4.b. (ii). See Yahoo! Inc. and GeoCities v. Cupcakes, Cupcake city, Cupcake Confidential, Cupcake-Party, Cupcake Parade, and John Zuccarini, D2000-0777 (WIPO Oct. 2, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s registration and use of multiple domain names infringe upon the Complainant’s marks); Harcourt, Inc. v. Jeff Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8,2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4.b. (ii)).

Further, Respondent registered the domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his own website e24plc.com, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, endorsement, or affiliation of the website, which evidences Respondent’s bad faith registration and use. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his web-site for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark by offering the same chat services via his web-site as the Complainant).

In addition, Respondent’s registering the domain names for the purpose of selling them for a price in excess of out of pocket costs, is evidence of bad faith registration and use. Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Dynojet Research, Inc. v. Norman, AF-0316 (eResolution Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith when he requested monetary compensation beyond out of pocket costs in exchange for the registered domain name).

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted.

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain names, "bloomberg24.com", "bloomberg24.net", "bloomberg24.org", "bloomberg365.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.