Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Anna Boldoreva / Phisical Face
Claim Number: FA2004001890675
Complainant is Blackstone TM L.L.C. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, United States. Respondent is Anna Boldoreva / Phisical Face (“Respondent”), Russia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <blackstonerussiaonline.com> and <blackstone-web.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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 1, 2020; the Forum received payment on April 1, 2020.
On April 3, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blackstonerussiaonline.com> and <blackstone-web.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 April 3, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 23, 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@blackstonerussiaonline.com, postmaster@blackstone-web.com. Also on April 3, 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 April 29, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Blackstone TM L.L.C., is a financial services company. Complainant has rights in the BLACKSTONE mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,986,927, registered Jul. 16, 1996). Respondent’s <blackstonerussiaonline.com> and <blackstone-web.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLACKSTONE mark as they contain the BLACKSTONE mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic or descriptive terms “web” or “Russia online” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <blackstonerussiaonline.com> and <blackstone-web.com> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s BLACKSTONE mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to confuse Internet users by impersonating Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and uses the <blackstonerussiaonline.com> and <blackstone-web.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain names with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain names. In addition, Respondent attempts to impersonate Complainant as part of a phishing scheme. 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, Blackstone TM L.L.C., is a financial services company. Complainant has rights in the BLACKSTONE mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,986,927, registered Jul. 16, 1996). Respondent’s <blackstonerussiaonline.com> and <blackstone-web.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLACKSTONE mark.
Respondent registered the disputed domain names on March 18, 2020.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <blackstonerussiaonline.com> and <blackstone-web.com> domain names. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to confuse Internet users by impersonating Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and uses the <blackstonerussiaonline.com> and <blackstone-web.com> domain names in bad faith.
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”).
Complainant has rights in the BLACKSTONE mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <blackstonerussiaonline.com> and <blackstone-web.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the disputed domain names incorporate the BLACKSTONE mark in its entirety and adds the generic or descriptive terms “web” or “russia online” along with the “.com” gTLD.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <blackstonerussiaonline.com> and <blackstone-web.com> domain names. Where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information can be used to determine if a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by that name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names here shows that the Registrant’s name is “ANNA BOLDOREVA” and nothing in the record indicates that Respondent is licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s BLACKSTONE mark or is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Therefore, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent fails to use the <blackstonerussiaonline.com> and <blackstone-web.com> domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent uses the domain names to confuse Internet users by passing off as Complainant. There is no bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use when a respondent’s resolving website from the disputed domain name is virtually the same as the complainant’s website and features a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See ShipChain, Inc. v. 谢东东 / 谢东东, FA 1785189 (Forum June 21, 2018) (“The resolving webpages between Complainant’s and Respondent’s websites are virtually the same. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and (iii).”).
Also, Respondent uses the domain names in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests in the name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s resolving websites where Internet users are asked to submit personal information. Therefore, Respondent lacks a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).
Respondent registered and uses the <blackstonerussiaonline.com> and <blackstone-web.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s well-known mark disrupts Complainant’s business, which is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Additionally, Respondent’s use of Complainant’s well-known mark signals an intent to deceive, which is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“the Panel finds the respondent is appropriating the complainant’s mark in a confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”).
Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by creating confusion in furtherance of a phishing scheme, which is 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).”).
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's BLACKSTONE mark when registering the domain names and. Therefore, Respondent registered and uses the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blackstonerussiaonline.com> and <blackstone-web.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: May 7, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page