Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is Bloomberg L.P., New York, NY, USA ("Complainant"). Respondent is Xuebao Wang, East Brunswick, NJ, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "bbloomberg.com" registered with BulkRegister.com.

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

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on December 15, 2000; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 15, 2000.

On December 29, 2000, BulkRegister.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "bbloomberg.com" is registered with BulkRegister.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. BulkRegister.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the BulkRegister.com 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@bbloomberg.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.

On February 5, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson 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." 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.

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

A. Complainant contends that Respondent’s domain name, bbloomberg.com, is confusingly similar to its registered mark, BLOOMBERG. In addition, Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the Complainant’s mark or any of its family of marks; therefore, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. And finally, Complainant contends Respondent registered and used the domain name at issue in bad faith because (i) Respondent was aware of Complainant’s mark prior to registering its domain name; (ii) Respondent registered its domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of any proven out-of-pocket costs; (iii) Respondent registered its domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s well established mark; and (iv) Respondent has made no use of its domain name since registration.

B. Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, Bloomberg L. P., has owned the registered mark BLOOMBERG since March of 1997. In addition, Complainant has obtained registrations for marks containing the word BLOOMBERG in over seventy-five (75) countries around the world. Complainant has used its registered mark in connection with products and services such as: computers, computer products, publications, financial services, radio and television broadcasting, entertainment services, and news reporting services. Complainant has invested substantial resources promoting its mark and has created significant goodwill and widespread consumer recognition. Since 1983, Complainant has become one of the largest providers worldwide of financial news and information and related goods and services.

Respondent, Xuabao Wang, registered the domain name at issue on June 13, 2000. Respondent has made no use of the domain name at issue since registration. In November of 2000 Complainant sent Respondent a cease and desist letter, to no avail.

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 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 to or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

(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.

According to ICANN Policy, Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in the mark, and the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.

Complainant’s rights are evidenced by its registered mark, BLOOMBERG. Respondent’s domain name, bbloomberg.com, is virtually identical to Complainant’s well-established mark. The only difference between Complainant’s mark and the domain name at issue is the addition of the letter "b." See Reuters Limited v Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns and Matt Oettinger, D2000-1368 (Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name "eebay.com" is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark).

The Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous mark.

Complainant further has shown Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name at issue and that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii). See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

Respondent has asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. Consequently, Respondent’s failure to show evidence sufficient to refute Complainant’s assertions, entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in regard to the domain name at issue. See Boeing Co. v. Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent has advanced no basis on which the Panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names and no use of the domain names has been proved).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.

Complainant has shown that Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant’s well-established mark prior to registering the domain name at issue. See Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith where Respondent was aware of Complainant’s famous mark when registering the domain name as well as aware of the deception and confusion that would inevitably follow if he used the domain names); see also Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, D2000-0911 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2000) (finding that the fact "that the Respondent chose to register a well known mark to which he has no connections or rights indicates that he was in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue").

Further, Complainant has established that Respondent has "passively held" the domain name at issue. See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp. D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 (a) (iii) of the Policy); see also Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that the Respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose).

Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered the domain name at issue in bad faith.

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be and is hereby granted.

Therefore, it is Ordered that the domain name, bbloomberg.com, be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.