Two major media companies, CNN and Bloomberg, have won UDRP cases against a Vietnamese cybersquatter who registered the domains CNN.now and Bloomberg.now in August. The Respondent, using the names Quan Ngo and Steve Ngo, followed the same playbook: register high-profile brands under then fresh .now extension, list them for sale on Spaceship, and demand tens of thousands of dollars from the trademark owners.
In the CNN case, Ngo emailed the network days after registration, asking $150,000 dollars and even sent a mocked-up image using CNN’s red logo with the words “Breaking News. Real Time.” The domain was also publicly offered for $48,000 dollars. In Bloomberg’s case, Ngo made the same $150,000 dollar demand, later reduced to $60,000 dollars, and referenced Bloomberg’s financial products directly in his email communications.
Both Forum panels found that Ngo had no legitimate interest in the domains and was clearly aware of the famous trademarks he was exploiting.
Each domain was ordered transferred to its rightful owner; The rulings reveal a coordinated pattern of brand-targeting and profiteering, with Ngo using Spaceship listings and direct solicitations to attempt to cash in on globally recognized media names.
CNN.now case:
Cable News Network, Inc. v. Quan Ngo
Claim Number: FA2510002180287
PARTIES
Complainant is Cable News Network, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by S. Annie Allison of Haynes and Boone, LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Quan Ngo (“Respondent”), Vietnam.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is cnn.now, registered with Spaceship, Inc.
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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 1, 2025. Forum received payment on October 1, 2025.
On October 3, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the cnn.now domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, Inc. 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 October 7, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 27, 2025 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@cnn.now. Also on October 7, 2025, 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 response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 28, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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
Cable News Network, Inc. (“Complainant” or “CNN”) is an international media and entertainment company and the #1 online news destination in the world. Since at least as early as 1980, Complainant has continually used its trademark, “CNN”, (the “CNN Mark”) to identify its numerous news and information services. The CNN Mark has acquired worldwide fame. Complainant, either directly or through its affiliated entities, owns domain names that include the CNN Mark, including, without limitation, cnn.com registered by Complainant in 1993.
The Disputed Domain Name, cnn.now, is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s CNN Mark.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor has Respondent been authorized to use the CNN Mark in any manner. There is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, or that Respondent was commonly or legitimately known by the CNN Mark, or any variation thereof, prior to the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent’s sole interest in the Disputed Domain Name is to trade on the goodwill of Complainant’s CNN Mark with the intent to profit therefrom which can in no way constitute a legitimate right or interest.
Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith for the purpose of selling it in excess of out-of-pocket costs. There can be no doubt that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its famous CNN Mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent contacted Complainant directly to offer the Disputed Domain Name for sale and further provided Complainant with a mock-up marketing image depicting the Disputed Domain Name using Complainant’s well-known CNN stylized mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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 has shown that it has rights in the stylized mark CNN, namely USPTO Registration No. 2,387,137, registered on September 19, 2000 for inter alia electrical and scientific apparatus, in International Class 9 and in the CNN word mark, USPTO Registration No. 2,903,197, registered on November 16, 2004 for cable television broadcasting, cable radio broadcasting, television broadcasting, radio broadcasting and broadcasting programs via a global computer network, in International Class 38.
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.7.
The Panel finds Respondent’s cnn.now domain name to be identical to Complainant’s CNN word mark, since the inconsequential “.now” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The cnn.now domain name was registered on August 19, 2025, many years after the registration of Complainant’s famous CNN marks. On August 23, 2025, Respondent sent an email to Complainant, offering the domain name for sale for $150,000. Next day, Respondent sent an email headed “Strategic Opportunity – Acquisition of CNN.Now Domain”, with an image of a billboard in a street, depicting Complainant’s stylized mark over the words “Breaking News. Real Time.” and stating: “An essential asset for media companies in the era of Live News, Breaking News, Real-Time Events, and Streaming.” The domain name currently resolves to a Registrar parking page, where it is offered for sale for $48,000.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the cnn.now domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: “the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith” and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant, its famous CNN marks and its cnn.com domain name when Respondent registered the cnn.now domain name and did so primarily for the purpose of selling the domain name registration to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the cnn.now domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: October 29, 2025
Bloomberg.now case:
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Steve Ngo
Claim Number: FA2509002179663
PARTIES
Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P. (“Complainant”), represented by Madeline Kessler of Bloomberg L.P., New York, USA. Respondent is Steve Ngo (“Respondent”), Vietnam.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is bloomberg.now, registered with Dynadot Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 29, 2025; Forum received payment on September 29, 2025.
On October 3, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the bloomberg.now domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc 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 October 8, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 28, 2025 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.now. Also on October 8, 2025, 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 response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 29, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that since the inception of its business in 1981, and the adoption of the “Bloomberg” name in 1987, it has become 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. One of the many products and services offered by Complainant is the Bloomberg Terminal service, which provides access to news, analytics, communications, charts, liquidity, functionalities, and trading services. There are currently over 350,000 Bloomberg Terminal subscribers worldwide. Complainant is headquartered in New York City, and employs 21,000 people in over 159 locations around the world. Complainant has rights in the BLOOMBERG mark through its registration in the United States in 2003; the mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is well known.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its BLOOMBERG mark as it consists of the mark, merely adding the “.now” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its BLOOMBERG mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. On August 26, 2025, Complainant received an email from Respondent, who introduced himself as the registrant of the disputed domain name, offering to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for $150,000, and explicitly referring to Complainant and its activities. Complainant responded, advising Respondent that his purported registration of the disputed domain name was an infringement of Complainant’s rights and asking him to voluntarily transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant. Respondent declined to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant, instead reducing the asking price from $150,000 to $60,000.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to sell it to Complainant for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLOOMBERG mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant owns the mark BLOOMBERG and uses it to provide financial news and data and related goods and services. The mark is well known.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 2003.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 19, 2025.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
One week after registering the disputed domain name, Respondent offered to sell it to Complainant for an amount in excess of out of pocket costs; Respondent’s email to Complainant explicitly referred to Complainant and its activities.
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
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark in its entirety and merely adds the “.now” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). This does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs”); see also Abbott Labs v. Whois Svc., FA 1254682 (Forum May 14, 2009) (“the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark”); see also Twitter, Inc. v. Jie, FA 1919786 (Forum Dec. 9, 2020) (“The Panel considers the disputed domain name [twitter.luxe] to be identical to Complainant’s registered [TWITTER] trademark”). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark in any way. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to identify a respondent. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the chevron-europe.com domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as “Steve Ngo”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
One week after registering the disputed domain name, Respondent offered to sell it to Complainant for an amount in excess of out of pocket costs. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. High Performance Networks, Inc., FA 95083 (Forum July 31, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent registered the domain name with the intention of selling its rights); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s willingness to sell a contested domain name for more than its out-of-pocket costs provided additional evidence that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as noted above, Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name for an amount in excess of out of pocket costs. This is sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Dollar Rent A Car Sys., Inc. v. Jongho, FA 95391 (Forum Sept. 11, 2000) (finding that the respondent demonstrated bad faith by registering the domain name with the intent to transfer it to the complainant for $3,000, an amount in excess of its out of pocket costs); see also George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that the respondent registered and was using the gwbakeries.mobi domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where it offered it for sale for far more than its estimated out-of-pocket costs it incurred in initially registering the disputed domain name). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the emails from Respondent to Complainant explicitly refer to Complainant and its activities. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm’cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant’s rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the bloomberg.now domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: October 29, 2025
