Bloomberg Finance L.P. v Rodrigo Trevino

WIPO Case No. DCO2022-0007

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Rodrigo Trevino

Case No. DCO2022-0007

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Bloomberg Finance L.P., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Brigard & Castro, Colombia.

The Respondent is Rodrigo Trevino, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bloomberglp.co> is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 25, 2022. On January 26, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 27, 2022, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 27, 2022, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 1, 2022.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the
Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental
Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 3, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 23, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 1, 2022.

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on March 3, 2022. The Panel

page 2

finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and
Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is in the business of providing data, news, analytics and other services. It owns the trademark BLOOMBERG, which it has registered in numerous countries, including Colombia (Registration No. 279232, registered on January 29, 2004). According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on April 22, 2021. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant, including using the disputed domain name to send email messages to individuals seeking employment with the Complainant, and therewith seeking to obtain personal information from such individuals.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. This element under the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the BLOOMBERG mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations.

The disputed domain name incorporates the BLOOMBERG mark in its entirety. This is sufficient for showing confusing similarity under the Policy.

page 3

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent (with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant).

On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark in any way, nor has the Complainant licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to apply for or use any domain name incorporating that mark, (2) there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the name BLOOMBERG, and (3) the Respondent is not making a fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel additionally finds that use of the disputed domain name for sending fraudulent emails is not a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. And nothing in the record otherwise tilts the balance in the Respondent’s favor. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Because the Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark is well-known, it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of the mark when it registered the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, such a showing is sufficient to establish bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. Bad faith use is clear from the Respondent’s activities of using the disputed domain name to send a fraudulent email messages. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully met this third UDRP element.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the

Panel orders that the disputed domain name <bloomberglp.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Evan D. Brown/
Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: March 18, 2022