Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Bloomberg L.P., New York, NY, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Indidom, Seoul, KOREA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "bloombergcomm.com", registered with Network Solutions.

On February 28, 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 and 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 January 22, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 29, 2001.

On January 24, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "bloombergcomm.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 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 February 2, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 22, 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@bloombergcomm.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 name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not put forward a reply in this proceeding.

on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Registration No. 2,045,947.

The complaint is based upon the trademark and service mark BLOOMBERG, U.S. Reg. No. 2,045,947, and trademark and service mark BLOOMBERG, South Korea, Reg. Nos. 54991, 44948, 43009, 44947, 49368, 389612, and 389613.

In addition to Complainant's BLOOMBERG mark, Complainant has registered on the Principal Register of the U.S. PTO, and continually used in commerce, a family of at least twenty three (23) trademarks and service marks containing the word BLOOMBERG. In addition, Complainant has obtained registrations for marks containing the word BLOOMBERG in over seventy-five (75) countries around the world.

September 29, 1993; <bloomberg.net> registered March 8, 1997; and <bloomberg.org> registered December 14, 1999. <Bloomberg.com> has been in continuous use by Complainant since its registration in 1993. <Bloomberg.co.kr> was registered on April 2, 1999.

Complainant's substantial advertising and promotion of Complainant's mark, its BLOOMBERG Family of Marks, its Bloomberg trade name and its domain names have 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 has over 4500 employees. Complainant is headquartered in New York and serves clients in over 100 countries with nine sales offices, two data centers, and seventy-eight news bureaus worldwide.

not limited to South Korea.

The Respondent registered <bloombergcomm.com> on September 4, 2000. The Respondent has not shown any legitimate business activities or use in connection with the disputed domain name.

Complainant sent Respondent a letter on December 7, 2000, revealing its rights in the domain name. Respondent replied in the Korean language, upon translation, it was revealed that the Respondent failed to answer any of the substantive issues raised in the Complainant's letter. Respondent's reply to the Complainant's letter was substantially the same as the reply received by the Complainant from a registrant of another infringing domain name: <bloombergfn.com>. Due to the identical Korean wording of the reply letter by the Respondent and the registrant of the domain name <bloombergfn.com>, the Complainant draws an inference that the Respondent <INDIDOM> is the same person or entity as <Geonill Cha> for the domain name <bloombergfn.com>.

The Respondent has also registered other domain names that contain famous trademarks, such as <payperreview.com>, <cnbcasia.com>, and <latex365.com>, etc.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.

Complainant's Mark, BLOOMBERG. The domain name <bloombergcomm.com> incorporates the mark BLOOMBERG in addition to the term "COMM." The mere addition of the letters, "COMM" does not render the distinctive trademark such as BLOOMBERG diminished, nor does an addition of the letters, "COMM" controvert the ownership of trademark or service mark rights in the Complainant. The addition of these letters takes advantage of two common typing errors—eliminating the period between the "com" suffix and adding an extra "m" at the end of the suffix. See Bank of American Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark "Bank of America" because it "takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet"). Therefore, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark.

1983. Because "Bloomberg" has no meaning other than to identify Michael R. Bloomberg and his company, it is unlikely Respondent independently arrived at the Bloomberg domain name. 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 marks. To Complainant's knowledge, Respondent has never been commonly known by BLOOMBERG and has never acquired trademark or service mark in such name. Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). In addition, the Respondent failed to provide any evidence showing legitimate commercial or non-commercial interests in the domain name. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), (iii). See State Fair of Texas v. State Fair Guides, FA 95066 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 25, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s failure to develop the site demonstrates a lack of legitimate interest in the domain name). Therefore, the Panel determines that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

The Respondent seems to be engaged in a pattern of registering famous trade and service marks as domain names. Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Associates, FA 95234 (Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the Respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names which infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks); Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v. Shedon.com, D2000-0753 (Sept. 6, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent engaged in the practice of registering domain names containing the trademarks of others). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

Further, Complainant has established Respondent registered the domain name at issue intentionally to attract Internet users to its web site or other online location, strictly for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-established mark as to the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site. See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that given the similarity of the Complainant’s marks with the domain name, consumers will presume the domain name is affiliated with the Complainant …the Respondent is attracting Internet users to a web site, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site).

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 name "bloombergcomm.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.