Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is Bloomberg L.P., New York, NY, USA ("Complainant"). Respondent is The International Capital Group Inc., Hollywood, CA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "bloomburge.com" registered with Register.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. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on February 6, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 12, 2001.

On February 13, 2001, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "bloomburge.com" is registered with Register.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.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 February 14, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 6, 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@bloomburge.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 15, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a one member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. 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

Complainant alleges the following:

B. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, Bloomberg L. P., is named after its founder Michael R. Bloomberg and Complainant 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 for the mark. Since 1983, Complainant has become one of the world’s largest providers of financial and news related goods and services.

Respondent, The International Capital Group, Inc., is not licensed or otherwise permitted to use Complainant’s mark or any of the BLOOMBERG family of marks. On January 11, 2001, Complainant sent Respondent a Cease and Desist letter. Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for $30,000. Complainant refused to pay any money above and beyond the cost of registering the domain name and Respondent withdrew that offer and asked for $100 million dollars.

To date, Respondent’s use of the domain name is to redirect Internet traffic to its web site "schuab.com" which Respondent uses to solicit investment funds.

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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) Respondent has no rights to 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 name, bloomburge.com, is phonetically identical to Complainant’s famous mark. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Cupcake City, FA 93562 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 7, 2000) (finding that a domain name which is phonetically identical to Complainant’s mark satisfies ¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy); 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).

The Panel finds that Complainant has shown that the domain name at issue is identical to Complainant’s registered mark. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)

Respondent has shown no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not known commonly as Bloomberg and Respondent does not have a right under the rules to register a domain name that is phonetically identical to another’s famous mark. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Cupcake City, FA 93562 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 7, 2000) (finding that Respondent can have no rights in the phonetically identical domain name HEWLITTPACKARD.COM because the trademark HEWLETT PACKARD is already owned worldwide by HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY).

Further, Respondent asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in issue and that entitles this Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See 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); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that "Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the Domain Names").

Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has shown rights to and legitimate interest in the mark Respondent used to create the domain name in issue and that Respondent has no rights to or interest in the mark. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

The evidence shows Respondent offered to sell the domain name to Complainant for an amount in excess of out-of-pocket costs. This permits an inference that Respondent acted in bad faith. 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); World Wrestling Fed’n Entertainment, Inc. v. Bosman, D0099-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000) (finding that Respondent used the domain name in bad faith because he offered to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of any out of pocket costs); see also Moynahan v. Fantastic Sites, Inc., D2000-1083 (WIPO Oct. 22, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant for $10,000 when Respondent was contacted by Complainant).

Further, given the worldwide nature of Complainant’s business and development of its mark, it is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent knew or had constructive notice of Complainant’s well-established mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. This also is evidence of bad faith. 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 in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue").

Finally, the evidence shows Respondent is attracting Internet users to its web site via a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s well-established mark by linking the disputed domain name to a site which offers services similar to Complainant’s. See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the Respondent had engaged in bad faith use and registration by linking the domain name to a web site that offers services similar to Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks).

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and has used the domain name in issue in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

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, bloomburge.com, be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.