The registrant of Bloomberg.ai lost the UDRP that was filed against the domain by the trademark owners, Bloomberg Finance L.P., a globally-known financial, software, data, and media company.
In the UDRP, the Respondent did not respond; in informal responses shared on NamePros, the domain’s owner asserted that “Bloomberg” is his cat’s name, for which he provided photos of a pet’s traveling passport registered in Ukraine.
Following the UDRP filing, the Respondent created an Instagram account sharing photos of his beloved cat, “Bloomberg.”
Alas, the cat lost, as the Forum panelist knew nothing about this beautiful story. Final decision: Grant the transfer of the domain name Bloomberg.ai to the Complainant, who obviously hates cats. 💔
Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Igor Gabrielan
Claim Number: FA2311002072420
PARTIES
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Laya Varanasi of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is Igor Gabrielan (“Respondent”), Unknown.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is bloomberg.ai, registered with Igor Gabrielan.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 27, 2023; Forum received payment on November 27, 2023.
On November 28, 2023, Igor Gabrielan confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the bloomberg.ai domain name is registered with Igor Gabrielan and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Igor Gabrielan has verified that Respondent is bound by the Igor Gabrielan registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 5, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 26, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bloomberg.ai. Also on December 5, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 26, 2023, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that 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” through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, 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
Complainant is one of the largest providers of global financial news and data and related goods and services and is recognized and trusted worldwide as a leading source of financial information and analysis. Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark has numerous registrations in many countries.
Respondent’s bloomberg.ai domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark. The bloomberg.ai domain name incorporates the BLOOMBERG mark in its entirety.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the bloomberg.ai domain name registered on July 5, 2022. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the BLOOMBERG mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Respondent registered and uses the bloomberg.ai domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to trade upon Complainant’s global reputation. Respondent is auctioning the domain name, without any affiliation with or permission from Complainant. Respondent’s conduct with respect to the disputed domain name is not unique to Bloomberg. Igor Gabrielan is named as both the registrant and registrar of the disputed domain name and several other ai domains that feature well-known trademarks, all of which are available for auction.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
For the reasons set forth below, based upon the uncontested allegations and evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the bloomberg.ai 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 and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
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 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.
In view of Respondent’s failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant argues that its registration of the BLOOMBERG mark with numerous government authorities establishes Complainant’s rights to the mark, as “the registration of a mark with a legitimate governmental authority is sufficient under the Policy to allow a rebuttable presumption of rights in the mark.” See Target Brands, Inc. v. JK Internet Services, FA410000349108 (Forum Dec. 14, 2004). Complainant has submitted evidence of these registrations. The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s bloomberg.ai domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding the “.ai” gTLD to a mark does not differentiate the domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) (“Respondent’s antfinancial-investorrelations.com Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ANT FINANCIAL mark. It incorporates the mark entirely. It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms “investor relations,” and the “.com” gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant’s mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has proved this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014)”(Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant argues that it has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use Complainant’s mark, nor has Complainant licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to apply for or use any domain name incorporating those marks and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent currently listed on the WHOIS record is commonly known by the Bloomberg name. As a result, Respondent lacks a basis to rebut Complainant’s Policy ¶4(a)(ii) claim. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Esmeralda Ortega, FA1706001734794, (finding “that there is no evidence in the record to find that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names”). The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has proved this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant argues Respondent is attempting to garner the goodwill and fame of the BLOOMBERG mark. When a mark is especially well known, Panels have held that no possible use of the mark by someone other than its owner can be in good faith. See Harrods Ltd. v. Harrod’s Closet, D2001-1027 (WIPO Sept. 28, 2001) (finding that where a mark is so “obviously connected with well-known products,” its very use by someone with no connection to these products can evidence opportunistic bad faith); see also Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, D2000-0911 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2000) (“[T]he fact that Respondent chosen [sic] to register a well-known mark to which [it] has no connections or rights indicates that [it] was in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue.”). Complainant provides evidence to support its assertion of the mark’s international fame. Respondent’s use of the BLOOMBERG mark is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant argues that it has a strong reputation and a high-profile presence in the financial, media, and technology sectors, and is the subject of substantial consumer recognition and goodwill and that Respondent’s use of the BLOOMBERG mark leads to the conclusion that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s mark before registering the disputed domain name. Complainant argues this use is evidence of bad faith because it is unlikely Respondent would have selected the disputed domain name without knowing the reputation of the BLOOMBERG mark See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Bloomberg Investments, FA1603001665140, (“Given the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and the use given the disputed domain name by Respondent, the Panel agrees with Complainant relative to Respondent’s actual knowledge, and finds that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith.”). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLOOOMBERG mark and registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
Complainant has proved this element.
DECISION
Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the bloomberg.ai domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Panelist
January 8, 2024
Good. Squatters deserve to lose their trademark infringing domains.