Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
DECISION
Bloomberg LP v.
Triple E Holdings Limited
Claim Number:
FA0210000127715
PARTIES
Complainant is
Bloomberg LP, New York, NY (“Complainant”) represented by Alexander Kim, of Bloomberg LP. Respondent
is Triple E Holdings Limited,
Richfield, MN (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND
DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bloombberg.com>,
<bloomborg.com>,
<bloomberge.com>, registered with BulkRegister.com, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that she has acted
independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known
conflict
in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra Franklin as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National
Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on October 9, 2002; the Forum
received
a hard copy of the Complaint on October 14, 2002.
On October 9, 2002, BulkRegister.com, Inc. confirmed
by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <bloombberg.com>,
<bloomborg.com> and
<bloomberge.com> are registered with BulkRegister.com, Inc. and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the names. BulkRegister.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by
the BulkRegister.com, 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 October 15, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and
Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline of November 4, 2002 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@bloombberg.com, postmaster@bloomborg.com, and
postmaster@bloomberge.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 December 3, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request
to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed
Sandra
Franklin 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be
transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’
CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1.
Respondent’s <bloombberg.com>, <bloomborg.com> and <bloomberge.com> domain names
are confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered BLOOMBERG mark.
2.
Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the <bloombberg.com>, <bloomborg.com> and <bloomberge.com> domain names.
3.
Respondent registered and used the <bloombberg.com>, <bloomborg.com> and <bloomberge.com> domain names in
bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this
proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is the owner of the
BLOOMBERG mark (Reg. No. 2,045,947), which was registered on the Principle
Register of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USTPO”). The
BLOOMBERG mark and trade name represents Complainant as a Delaware limited
partnership,
which has been in business since 1983.
Complainant uses
its BLOOMBERG mark along with twenty-three (23) other marks domestically, and
numerous other marks in over seventy-five
(75) countries internationally.
Complainant’s substantial advertising and promotion of the mark have created
widespread consumer
recognition. Since Complainant’s inception, Complainant has
become a leader in financial news and information and related goods and
services. Complainant employs over 8,000 employees in over 100 offices
worldwide.
Complainant
maintains the domain names: <bloomberg.com>; <bloomberg.net>; and
<bloomberg.org>. Moreover, Complainant
maintains over 400 other domain
names incorporating the BLOOMBERG mark.
Respondent
registered the disputed domain name <bloombberg.com>
on April 30, 2002, and registered both
<bloomborg.com> and
<bloomberge.com> on May 23, 2002. All three of Respondent’s disputed
domain names, <bloombberg.com>,
<bloomborg.com> and <bloomberge.com> redirect
Internet users to <omegafind.com>. This website is owned and operated by
Respondent.
DISCUSSION
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 and
draw such inferences it considers appropriate
pursuant to paragraph 14(b) 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or
service mark in which Complainant has
rights; and
(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.
Identical and/or
Confusingly Similar
Complainant has
established rights in the BLOOMBERG mark through registration with the USTPO
and subsequent continuous use of the
mark.
All three of the
disputed domain names, <bloombberg.com>,
<bloomborg.com> and
<bloomberge.com> are variations of Complainant’s registered mark,
BLOOMBERG. Respondent is simply altering Complainant’s mark slightly by way of
adding
a letter, or merely changing the spelling in order to prosper off of
Internet users who are in all actuality intending to visit Complainant’s
website. The simple variations do not create a distinct name from that of
Complainant. See Victoria’s Secret v.
Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by
misspelling words and adding letters to words, a Respondent does not
create a
distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks); State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Try Harder & Co., FA 94730 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15,
2000) (finding that the domain name <statfarm.com> is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s
STATE FARM mark).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has thus been satisfied.
Rights or
Legitimate Interests
Respondent has
not submitted a reply to Complainant’s allegations, thereby permitting the
Panel to conclude that all reasonable inferences
made by Complainant are true
and accurate unless there is evidence that is clearly contradictory. Vertical
Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum
July 31, 2000) (failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in
the allegations of Complainant
to be deemed true); Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi
Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to
respond allows a presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true unless
clearly contradicted by the evidence).
There is no evidence that contradicts the allegations of
Complainant. Complainant has presented
evidence that substantiates its claim that Respondent has no legitimate rights
or interests in the contested
domain names.
Respondent
deliberately registered the disputed domain names to capitalize on
Complainant’s established mark.
Moreover, Respondent used Complainant’s mark to divert Internet
consumers to <omegafind.com>, Respondent’s commercial website.
There are
no rights or legitimate interests when one tries to benefit from the
unauthorized use of another’s mark by diverting Internet
traffic to other
websites pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain
name to confuse and divert Internet
traffic is not a legitimate use of the
domain name); Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v.
Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no legitimate use
when Respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by
using
Complainant’s trademarks).
There has been no
evidence submitted to indicate that Respondent has a substantial affiliation with,
or is known by the <bloombberg.com>, <bloomborg.com> or <bloomberge.com> domain names. Complainant has
established itself as the sole and bona fide possessor of all legitimate rights
and interests in the mark BLOOMBERG.
Since Respondent has not come forward with
a viable alternative rationalization
for its use of the registered mark of Complainant, and uses many confusingly
similar domain names to direct
users to another site, it can be deduced that
Respondent has no rights to the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,
D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant;
(2) Complainant’s prior
rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is
not commonly known by the
domain name in question); Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests where one “would be hard pressed to
find a person who
may show a right or legitimate interest” in a domain name
containing Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE trademark).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has thus been satisfied.
Registration and
Use in Bad Faith
Respondent has
registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Complainant’s
mark, BLOOMBERG, is registered with the
USTPO. Respondent was placed on
constructive notice by virtue of registration of Complainant’s mark on the
Principle Register. Respondent’s
registration of the disputed domain names
thereafter, containing Complainant’s mark, is an indication of bad faith
registration.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher,
D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that Respondent had actual and
constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark given
the worldwide
prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the domain name in bad
faith). Victoria’s Cyber Secret Ltd.
P’ship v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 161 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1349 (S.D.Fla.
2001) (noting that “a Principal Register registration [of a trademark or
service mark] is constructive
notice of a claim of ownership so as to eliminate
any defense of good faith adoption” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1072).
As stated
previously, Complainant is a well-known international financial business enterprise
and its name and service marks are well
known through extensive marketing and
advertising. Respondent has engaged in a practice of registering domain names
similar to that
of Complainant’s mark and altering the name slightly. This is
commonly referred to as “typosquatting”. Typosquatting is a recognized
bad
faith use of a domain name under the UDRP. See
L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol, FA 96504 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 12, 2001)
(finding that Respondent acted in bad faith by establishing a pattern of
registering misspellings
of famous trademarks and names). Respondent has
capitalized on Complainant’s marks as well as reputation by registering and
using
domain names so similar to the registered marks through typosquatting.
Additionally,
according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), evidence of bad faith registration and use is
shown when registration of a domain name
occurs in order to utilize another’s
well known reputation by attracting Internet users to a website, for commercial
gain. Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm.
Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where
Respondent registered and used an infringing domain name to attract
users to a
website sponsored by Respondent); Drs.
Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000)
(finding bad faith where Respondent directed Internet users seeking
Complainant’s site
to its own website for commercial gain).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has thus been satisfied.
DECISION
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
hereby concludes that the requested relief shall
be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is ordered that the domain names <bloombberg.com>, <bloomborg.com> and <bloomberge.com> be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to
Complainant.
Sandra Franklin,
Panelist
Dated: December 13, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1665.html