Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Alexander Kim, Bloomberg L.P., New York, NY, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Hans Global Co., Seoul, Korea ("Respondent").

The domain names at issue are "asiabloomberg.com" and "bloombergkorea.com" registered with Network Solutions, Inc.

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.

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on January 31, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 2, 2001.

On February 6, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names "asiabloomberg.com", "bloombergkorea.com" are registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 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 12, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 5, 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@asiabloomberg.com, postmater@bloombergkorea.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 March 13, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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 the Respondent.

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

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges the following:

B. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, Bloomberg L. P., owns the registered mark BLOOMBERG, which it has used in connection with various computer products and publications as well as financial, entertainment and news services. In addition, Complainant has obtained registrations for marks containing the word BLOOMBERG in over seventy-five countries around the world. 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 and news related goods and services.

Respondent, Hans Global Co., is not licensed or otherwise permitted to use the Complainant’s mark or any of the BLOOMBERG family of marks. On November 3, 2000, Complainant sent Respondent a Cease and Desist letter, to which Respondent replied with an offer to sell the disputed domain names. To date, there is no active page under either of the domain names at issue.

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.

Complainant’s rights are evidenced by its registered mark, BLOOMBERG. Respondent’s domain names, asiabloomberg.com and bloombergkorea.com, are confusing similar because the domain names are comprised of Complainant’s mark and a geographic qualifier. See Net2phone Inc, v. Netcall SAGL, D2000-0666 (WIPO Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s registration of the domain name <net2phone-europe.com> is confusingly similar to complainant’s mark…"the combination of a geographic term with the mark does not prevent a domain name from being found confusingly similar."); see also Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainant’s web site, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist).

Complainant has shown Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor is Respondent using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. 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 the 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).

Moreover, Respondent has asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, which entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. 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 proven); see also Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc. and D3M Domain Sales, AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where no such right or interest is immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent has not come forward to suggest any such right or interest that it may possess).

Consequently, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Complainant has shown Respondent had constructive notice of its well-established mark prior to registering the disputed domain names. See Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith where the Respondent was aware of the 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 acting in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue").

Further, Complainant has established that Respondent’s only use of the disputed domain names has been to offer them for sale, which constitutes bad faith. See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v. Sallen and Sallen Enterprises, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that mere passive holding of a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner’s conduct creates the impression that the name is for sale); see also 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).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

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

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