Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Bloomberg LP v. A.J.E. Metz a/k/a
VuurWerk Internet c/o Arno Kensen
Claim Number: FA0212000135606
PARTIES
Complainant
is Bloomberg LP, New York, NY, USA
(“Complainant”) represented by Alexander
Kim, of Bloomberg LP. Respondent is A.J.E. Metz a/k/a Vuurwerk Internet c/o Arno Kensen, Amsterdam, THE NETHERLANDS (“Respondent”)
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <bloombergonline.com>,
registered with Register.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 December 2, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on December 2, 2002.
On
December 3, 2002, Register.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <bloombergonline.com>
is registered with Register.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Register.com, Inc. has verified
that Respondent is
bound by the Register.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
December 6, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline
of December 26, 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@bloombergonline.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
January 6, 2003, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
1. Complainant argues that Respondent’s <bloombergonline.com> domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG
mark.
2. Complainant argues that Respondent does
not have rights to or legitimate interests in the <bloombergonline.com> domain name.
3. Complainant argues that Respondent
registered and used the <bloombergonline.com>
domain name 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 is registered on the Principle
Register of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (“USTPO”). Moreover,
Complainant is also registered with the Benelux (multi-country coalition
between
Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxemburg) authorities, where Respondent
is listed as conducting business (Reg. No. 612,552). 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, or variations thereof.
Respondent registered <bloombergonline.com> on May 11, 2000. Since registration,
Respondent has made no use of the domain name.
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, the Benelux authorities, and subsequent
continuous use of the mark.
Respondent’s <bloombergonline.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s registered BLOOMBERG mark. The addition of the generic term “online”
does not create a distinct
mark dissimilar from Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark.
By incorporating the entire mark of Complainant, a distinct domain name capable
of overcoming a Policy ¶
4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis has not been formed. See Broadcom
Corp. v. Domain Depot, FA 96854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2001) (finding
the <broadcomonline.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s
BROADCOM mark); See The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Irvine,
FA 95768 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name
<prudentialonline.com> is confusingly similar
to Complainant’s PRUDENTIAL
mark); see also Arthur Guinness
Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v.
Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity
where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of Complainant combined with a generic word or
term).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(i) has thus been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
When a
Response is not provided, then the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations
made in the Complaint to be factually correct.
Unless the assertions presented
are clearly in conflict with the evidence on record, there is a presumption of
validity in favor
of Complainant.
See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson,
D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is
appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint”);
see also 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).
Respondent has
made no use of the disputed domain name. Simply registering the domain name is
not sufficient to establish rights and
legitimate interests. When Respondent
makes no use of a disputed domain name, it can neither be said as being used
for a bona fide
use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or as a legitimate non-commercial or
fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret
AS v. Kahveci,
D2000-1244 (WIPO Nov. 11, 2000) (finding that “merely registering the domain
name is not sufficient to establish rights or legitimate
interests for purposes
of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy”); see also Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13,
2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent failed to
submit a Response to the Complaint
and had made no use of the domain name in
question).
There has been no evidence submitted to
indicate that Respondent has a substantial affiliation with, or is known by the
<bloombergonline.com> domain name. Complainant has established
itself as the sole holder of all rights and legitimate interests in the
BLOOMBERG mark. Since
Respondent has not come forward with a viable alternative supporting its use of Complainant’s mark, and does not have
authorization or consent to use the mark, the Panel may accept
the proposition
proposed by Complainant that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
See 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); see also 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
registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant’s
BLOOMBERG mark is registered with both the
USTPO and the Benelux authorities,
thereby placing Respondent on constructive notice. Moreover, given the
worldwide identification
of the BLOOMBERG mark, it can also be inferred that
Respondent was conscious of the mark, and consequently had notice of
Complainant’s
rights. Respondent’s subsequent registration of the disputed
domain name containing Complainant’s mark notwithstanding knowledge
of Complainant’s
rights, is evidence of bad faith registration. See Samsonite
Corp. v. Colony Holding,
FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith
includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly
known mark at the time
of registration); see also Paws, Inc. v. Odie, FA 96206
(Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2001) ("Given the uniqueness and the extreme
international popularity of the [ODIE] mark,
the Respondent knew or should have
known that registering the domain name in question would infringe upon the
Complainant's goodwill").
Respondent
engaged in passively holding the disputed domain name. Respondent, by failing
to utilize the <bloombergonline.com> domain name
raises the implication that Respondent is engaging in bad faith registration
and use. Respondent has failed to proffer
any evidence that it plans on using
the disputed domain name in any fashion. By holding a domain name for over two
years and failing
to use it, for any legitimate purpose, the Panel shall infer
bad faith. See Mondich &
Am. Vintage Wine Biscuits, Inc. v. Brown, D2000-0004 (WIPO Feb. 16, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s
failure to develop its website in a two year period raises the inference
of
registration in bad faith); see also Caravan
Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that
Respondent made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the
domain name, and that passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of
registration and use in bad faith).
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
name <bloombergonline.com> be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra Franklin, Panelist
Dated: January 9, 2003
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2003/20.html