Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. zhang shuo / tian xing
Claim Number: FA2305002044996
Complainant is Blackstone TM L.L.C. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is zhang shuo / tian xing (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <blackstoneaceo.com>, <blackstoneaito.com>, <blackstoneino.com>, <blackstoneiuo.com>, <blackstoneogo.com>, <blackstoneqi.com>, <blackstoneqtt.com>, <blackstoneuo.com>, <blackstonesgpt.com>, <blackstonesvip.com>, <blackstoneaii.com>, <blackstoneigo.com>, <blackstoneccpro.com>, and <blackstonecctop.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 17, 2023; Forum received payment on May 17, 2023. The Complaint was submitted in both the Chinese language and English.
On May 19, 2023, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <blackstoneaceo.com>, <blackstoneaito.com>, <blackstoneino.com>, <blackstoneiuo.com>, <blackstoneogo.com>, <blackstoneqi.com>, <blackstoneqtt.com>, <blackstoneuo.com>, <blackstonesgpt.com>, <blackstonesvip.com>, <blackstoneaii.com>, <blackstoneigo.com>, <blackstoneccpro.com>, and <blackstonecctop.com> domain names are registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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 May 23, 2023, Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 12, 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@blackstoneaceo.com, postmaster@blackstoneaito.com, postmaster@blackstoneino.com, postmaster@blackstoneiuo.com, postmaster@blackstoneogo.com, postmaster@blackstoneqi.com, postmaster@blackstoneqtt.com, postmaster@blackstoneuo.com, postmaster@blackstonesgpt.com, postmaster@blackstonesvip.com, postmaster@blackstoneaii.com, postmaster@blackstoneigo.com, postmaster@blackstoneccpro.com, postmaster@blackstonecctop.com. Also on May 23, 2023, the Chinese and English language 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 June 20, 2023, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OR PROCEEDINGS
Prior to discussing the three elements of the Policy, the Panel must decide on the language of the proceedings. The Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings Chinese.
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel has the authority to determine a different language for the proceedings, having regard to the circumstances of the case. It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Pursuant to Rule 10(b), Respondent must be given a fair opportunity to present its case. Pursuant to Rule 10(c), the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”).
In the present case, Respondent has received the Complaint, Written Notice, and Commencement Notification in Chinese and has chosen not to respond to the Complaint. The resolving websites are in English. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Panel determines that fairness and justice to both parties, and due expedition, are best satisfied by conducting the remainder of the proceedings in English. See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Yoshihiro Nakazawa, FA 1736477 (Forum July 21, 2017); see also UBS AG v. ratzel laura, FA 1735687 (Forum July 14, 2017).
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
The Panel finds that the domain names are under common control as the websites displayed at these domains are essentially identical and appear to be used in furtherance of the same phishing scheme. Further, all the domain names were registered within a short period of time. This is sufficient to find that the domain names were registered by the same domain name holder. See The Valspar Corporation v. Zhou Zhiliang / zhouzhiliang / Zhiliang Zhou / Eric Chow / Visspa Ltd., FA100800133934 (Forum Sept. 28, 2010); see also BBY Solutions, Inc. v. White Apple / Dev Kumar, FA1805001787251 (Forum June 20, 2018).
Consequently, the Panel will rule on all of the contested domain names, and the two registrants are collectively referred to as “Respondent”.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that, founded in 1985 by Peter G. Peterson and Stephen A. Schwarzman with $40,000 and a shared secretary, it is today is a world-renowned financial services company with hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of assets under management. Complainant is headquartered in New York City and also has offices worldwide, including in Baltimore, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Toronto, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Mumbai, Dubai, Singapore, Seoul, Shanghai, Sydney, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Beijing, Dublin, Dusseldorf, Luxembourg, Mexico City and Sao Paulo, employing over 2,500 people worldwide. Complainant’s asset management businesses include investment vehicles focused on private equity, real estate, public debt and equity, non-investment grade credit, real assets and secondary funds, all on a global basis. Complainant also provides various financial advisory services, credit services and other investment and asset management services. It also provides bespoke alternative asset products to individual investors and smaller institutions through its “Private Wealth Solutions” group. Complainant registered the BLACKSTONE mark in numerous jurisdictions around the world, including in the United States in 1996. The mark is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its BLACKSTONE mark as they incorporate the mark in its entirety, merely adding additional letters and misspellings of terms along with generic and/or descriptive terms and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its BLACKSTONE mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain names are used in furtherance of phishing. Specifically, the disputed domain names resolve to websites featuring a screen directing users to “swipe” right, which, when swiped, redirects to “Log In” pages that display Complainant’s mark and logo, and request users to insert personal and/or confidential account information, ostensibly in an attempt to phish for personal or confidential information of Complainant’s clients. A reporting party has reported to Complainant that one of the domains names was used as part of a coordinated scheme by Respondent to impersonate Complainant and scam investors. As part of the scheme, the reporting party was reportedly contacted by a WhatsApp user who directed the reporting party to a Telegram group, which in turn directed the reporting party to the disputed domain, which resolved to or provided a platform via which the reporting party invested money under the belief that it was affiliated with Complainant, but was unable to withdraw their funds upon request; the reporting party then notified Complainant of the scam. Respondent engages in typosquatting.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent engages in phishing and typosquatting. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLACKSTONE mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the mark BLACKSTONE dating back to at least 1996 and uses it to offer financial services around the world.
The disputed domain names were registered in 2023.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent uses the disputed domain names in furtherance of phishing.
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 disputed domain names incorporate Complainant’s BLACKSTONE mark in its entirety, merely adding additional letters and misspellings of terms along with generic and/or descriptive terms and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic terms (even if misspelled) and/or relevant or meaningless letters is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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 Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word “advisors” and the gTLD “.com” did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters ‘sb’ and the digits ‘2018,’ plus the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”); see also Milliman, Inc v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org/Zhichao Yang, D2018-2178 (WIPO, Nov. 17, 2018) (finding that the addition of “benefis”, “bennefits”, “bnefits”, and “benefits” does not distinguish a disputed domain name from the complainant’s trademarks and ordering the transfer of <millimanbenefis.com>, <millimanbennefits.com>, <millimanbnefits.com>, and <millimannbenefits.com>). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its BLACKSTONE mark in any way. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as “Zhang Shuo / tian xing.” Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant alleges that Respondent engages in typosquatting. However typosquatting involves a misspelling of a mark (see 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”)) – which is not the case here. Consequently, the Panel will not further discuss this allegation.
Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain names are using in furtherance of phishing. Specifically, the disputed domain names resolve to websites that display Complainant’s mark and logo and request users to insert personal and/or confidential account information. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), engaging in phishing is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a noncommercial or fair use. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
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 names.
Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain names are used in furtherance of phishing. Engaging in phishing is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Further, Respondent displays a pattern of bad faith registration of disputed domain names containing Complainant’s BLACKSTONE mark. Registration of multiple domain names containing a complainant’s mark can substantiate an argument that a respondent registered and uses a disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See NIKE, Inc., and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Emile Boulanger, FA 1732458 (Forum July 3, 2017) (finding that registration of several infringing domain names in a case satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Angie Arendt / DIAHOST .CO / keith mosley, FA1805001789701 (Forum July 2, 2018) (finding that Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith and registration by registering multiple domain names that contain Complainant’s famous CATERPILLAR mark); see also Radisson Hotels Internation, Inc. v. Yue Mei Wang / Wang Yue Mei aka Pei Jun Gan / Gan Pei Jun / Jun Yu He / He Jun Yu / Denliyan, FA1504001615349 (Forum June 1, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s registration of the <radissonbluplazachongqing.com>, <radissonbluchongqingshapingba.com>, <radissonplazahoteltianjin.com>, and <radissonbluhotelshanghai.com> domain names, which all infringe on Complainant’s mark, constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blackstoneaceo.com>, <blackstoneaito.com>, <blackstoneino.com>, <blackstoneiuo.com>, <blackstoneogo.com>, <blackstoneqi.com>, <blackstoneqtt.com>, <blackstoneuo.com>, <blackstonesgpt.com>, <blackstonesvip.com>, <blackstoneaii.com>, <blackstoneigo.com>, <blackstoneccpro.com>, and <blackstonecctop.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: June 20, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page