Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Ignev Speransky
Claim Number: FA2201001981272
Complainant is Blackstone TM L.L.C. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Ignev Speransky (“Respondent”), Ukraine.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <blackstoneinvest.net>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 20, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 20, 2022.
On January 21, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blackstoneinvest.net> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 January 24, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 14, 2022 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@blackstoneinvest.net. Also on January 24, 2022, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 20, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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" 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, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Blackstone TM L.L.C., provides services in the financial industry, including investment services.
Complainant has rights in the BLACKSTONE mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <blackstoneinvest.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because Respondent has incorporated the entire mark and added the descriptive word “invest” and the “.net” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <blackstoneinvest.net> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant’s BLACKSTONE mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the domain name to host fraudulent financial services that appear to compete with Complainant .
Respondent registered and uses the <blackstoneinvest.net> domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the domain name to create initial interest confusion and disrupt Complainant’s business. In addition, Respondent had constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLACKSTONE mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the BLACKSTONE trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the BLACKSTONE trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website pretending to offer services competing with services offered by Complainant.
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."
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”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has a USPTO registration for its BLACKSTONE trademark. Such registration, as well as any of Complainant’s registrations with other trademark agencies worldwide, is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the BLACKSTONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world.”); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jimmy Yau, FA 1764034 (Forum Jan. 25, 2018) (“The Panel finds that complainant has rights in BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO.”).
Respondent’s <blackstoneinvest.net> domain name contains Complainant’s BLACKSTONE trademark followed by the suggestive generic term “invest” and with all followed by the top-level domain name, “.net.” The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the <blackstoneinvest.net> domain name from the BLACKSTONE trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <blackstoneinvest.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for <blackstoneinvest.net> identifies the domain name’s registrant is “Ignev Speransky” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <blackstoneinvest.net> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <blackstoneinvest.net> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).
Respondent uses <blackstoneinvest.net> to address a website featuring a name and marks nearly identical to Complainant’s name and marks. The website purports to offer services that compete with those offered by Complainant notwithstanding that the services offered by Respondent appear to be fraudulent. Indeed, the website addressed by Respondent’s confusingly similar domain name seems fake as photos of the Respondent’s “team members” are merely stock photos from other websites. Respondent’s use the of the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use” where “Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services.”); see also, Goodwin Procter LLP v. GAYLE FANDETTI, FA 1738231 (Forum Aug. 8, 2017) (“[T]he Domain Name has been used in an attempted fraud. As such it cannot have been registered for a legitimate purpose.”).
The at-issue domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights or legitimate interests, Respondent uses the confusingly similar <blackstoneinvest.net> domain name to address a website pretending to offer products or services in competition with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name in such a manner is disruptive to Complainant’s business and falsely indicates that there is a sanctioned relationship between Complainant and Respondent when there is no such relationship. Respondent’s use of the domain name thus demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Sandhills Publishing Company v. sudeep banerjee / b3net.com, Inc., FA 1674572 (Forum June 17, 2016) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <machinerytraderparts.com> domain name and the complainant’s MACHINERY TRADER mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum Jan. 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also, Acton Educational Services d/b/a West Coast Univ. v. West Coast Univ. Int’l Inc., FA 1191541 (Forum July 2, 2008) (website offering fake educational services was not a legitimate use of domain name).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLACKSTONE mark when it registered <blackstoneinvest.net> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark is evidenced from the worldwide notoriety of Complainant’s trademark; from Respondent’s inclusion of the entire mark in the at-issue domain name; and from Respondent use of the domain name to purport to offer services that compete with those offered by Complainant via the <blackstoneinvest.net> website. Respondent’s registration and use of <blackstoneinvest.net> with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLACKSTONE trademark, and thus in Respondent’s confusingly similar at-issue domain name, further shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blackstoneinvest.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: February 21, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page