Complainant –  Bloomberg Finance L.P.

Respondent – Ye Genrong

Disputed Domain –

Decision – is awarded to Bloomberg Finance L.P.

Case Summary:

Complainant Overview:

In the given dispute the complainant was incorporated as “Bloomberg Finance L.P”.The complainant is a well-known multinational financial news corporation, established in 1982, U.S.A.It 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.

The complainant holds trademarks like BLOOMBERG TRADEBOOK  and TRADEBOOK in 1996.The complainant also registered 56 trademarks since 1996 in different classes in the name of Bloomberg Finance L.P and Bloomberg L.P.

The Complainant owns domain names like,,,,,, India, the complaint has registered three marks BLOOMBERG, BLOOMBERG, BLOOMBERG TRADEBOOK under classes 9,16,16 respectively.


Respondent has failed to file a formal response to the complaint in spite of two opportunities given to him by the Honorable Arbitrator.

In order to win the domain from the respondent in an INDRP dispute, The complainant must prove all three following grounds:-

1)Registrant’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.

– Complainant has proved the disputed name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the complainant.

2)The registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of domain name.

As per the evidence established by Complainant,  the complainant owns multiple domain names comprising the trademark BLOOMBERG TRADEBOOK which would create confusion, anyway the use of trademark “BLOOMBERGTRADEBOOK” by the respondent is not legal as he has not obtained any permission from the trademark holder.Therefore the Respondent has no legitimate right over the said domain name.

3)Registrant’s domain has been registered or being used in bad faith.

Finally, the Tribunal finds the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. Arbitrator has quoted the below reason.

After seeing the evidence given by the complainant,it is clearly proved that the respondent want to earn income from the good wheel of the disputed domain because the disputed domain name was registered on September 17,2016.Apart from that,the respondent also demanded a sum of $5000 U.S.D from the complainant to transfer the disputed domain name ,which portraits the respondent as a cyber-squatter.So,the respondent has no right over the disputed domain.


Honorable Arbitrator S.C.INAMDAR taken the decision as the “complainant has succeeded in its complaint”.

Please read the further details about the dispute”

Access additional articles on INDRP @ INDRP Knowledge Base

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of and does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *