Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Sergei Hromichkov
Claim Number: FA2005001897278
Complainant is Blackstone TM L.L.C. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Sergei Hromichkov (“Respondent”), Germany.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <representrussiablackstone.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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 May 21, 2020; the Forum received payment on May 21, 2020.
On May 22, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 22, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 11, 2020 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@representrussiablackstone.com. Also on May 22, 2020, 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 June 16, 2020, 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., is a financial services company.
Complainant asserts rights in the BLACKSTONE mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the terms “represent” and “Russia” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the BLACKSTONE mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the domain name in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and uses the <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has a history of bad faith registration. Additionally, Respondent uses the domain name to confuse internet users and attract visitors to its website and phish for personal information. Finally, Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLACKSTONE mark at the time of registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the BLACKSTONE mark.
Respondent has not been authorized to use any of Complainant’s trademarks.
Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in BLACKSTONE.
Respondent uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
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 is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO registration of its BLACKSTONE mark establishes Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
The at-issue domain name contain Complainant’s BLACKSTONE trademark prefixed by the term “representrussia” with all followed by the top level domain name “.com.” The differences between Respondent’s <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to the domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In fact, the inclusion of the term “represents Russia” in the domain name suggest the international aspect of Complainant’s business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLACKSTONE trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.).
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). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
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 <representrussiablackstone.com>.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “SERGEI HROMICHKOV” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Additionally, Respondent uses the confusingly similar <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name to further a phishing scheme. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant on a website addressed by the domain name that displays Complainant’s mark and related photographs and layouts. The bogus website is then used to obtain the personal information of website visitors. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner indicates 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 Virtu Financial Operating, LLC v. Lester Lomax, FA1409001580464 (Forum Nov. 14, 2014) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to phish for Internet users personal information by offering a fake job posting on the resolving website).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent, using different names, has registered multiple domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Indeed, such domain names addressed the same or a similar bogus website as that addressed by the at-issue domain name. Respondent’s repeated cybersquatting evidences a pattern suggesting bad faith in the instant case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) (“The record contains evidence of Respondents previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).
Next, Respondent uses the <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name to trick internet users into believing that the at-issue domain name is affiliated with, or sponsored by, Complainant ‑when it is not. Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by using the confusingly similar domain name and dressing its <representrussiablackstone.com> website with Complainant’s trademark and other intellectual property. Respondent’s use of the <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name to create the false impression of Respondent having some affiliation with Complainant shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was “virtually identical, with the same color scheme, the same layout and the same substantive content” and used the website to gain access to users’ cryptocurrency accounts).
Similarly, Respondent’s use of <representrussiablackstone.com> in what appears to be a phishing scheme aimed at acquiring personal information from third parties also indicates Respondent’s bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name. See Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Services LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA1506001623601 (Forum July 14, 2015) (“Respondent’s attempt to use the <zoietis.com> domain name to phish for personal information in fraudulent emails also constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Finally, Respondent registered <representrussiablackstone.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the BLACKSTONE mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of <representrussiablackstone.com> to impersonate Complainant as discussed above. It is thus clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name in 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").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <representrussiablackstone.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: June 16, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page