Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Buy this domain on Dan.com ---- DOMAIN ADMINISTRATOR
Claim Number: FA2210002017605
Complainant is Blackstone TM L.L.C. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York. Respondent is Buy this domain on Dan.com ---- DOMAIN ADMINISTRATOR (“Respondent”), KY.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <buildwithblackstone.com>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 26, 2022; Forum received payment on October 26, 2022.
On October 27, 2022, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <buildwithblackstone.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 October 28, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 17, 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@buildwithblackstone.com. Also on October 28, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 23, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <buildwithblackstone.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GIANVITO ROSSI mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <buildwithblackstone.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <buildwithblackstone.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Blackstone TM L.L.C., offers financial and investment services and holds a registration for the BLACKSTONE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,986,927 registered July 16, 1996).
Respondent registered the <buildwithblackstone.com> domain name on October 4, 2022, and offers it for sale.
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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BLACKSTONE mark based on the registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant’s registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s <buildwithblackstone.com> domain name uses the BLACKSTONE mark and adds the terms “build” and “with” and the “.com” gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”) Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <buildwithblackstone.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLACKSTONE mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <buildwithblackstone.com> domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the BLACKSTONE mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Buy this domain on Dan.com ---- DOMAIN ADMINISTRATOR”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State 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)); see also Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where “the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.”)
Complainant argues that Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name is also demonstrated by its offer of the domain name for sale. Using a disputed domain name to offer it for sale to the general public does not demonstrate rights or legitimate interests. See AOL Inc. v. YourJungle Privacy Protection Service aka Whois Agent, FA1312001533324 (Forum Jan. 17, 2014) (“Respondent has offered the <aoljobsweek.com> domain name for sale to the general public, which demonstrates that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”) Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage that offers the disputed domain name for sale to the general public. The Panel thus finds that this is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <buildwithblackstone.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent merely offers the domain name for sale to the public. A general offer of sale of a disputed domain name can be evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Capital One Financial Corp. v. haimin xu, FA 1819364 (Forum Jan. 8, 2019) (“A general offer to sell a domain name can be evidence the respondent intended to make such an offer at the time it registered the name, supporting a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Complainant also argues that Respondent registered and uses the <buildwithblackstone.com> domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business. Using a disputed domain name to cause initial interest confusion with a complainant’s well-known mark evinces bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant’s business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Red Bull GmbH v. Gutch, D2000-0766 (WIPO Sept. 21, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s expected use of the domain name <redbull.org> would lead people to believe that the domain name was connected with the complainant, and thus is the equivalent to bad faith use). The Panel thus finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <buildwithblackstone.com> domain name TRANFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: November 25, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page