Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Joseph Lewis
Claim Number: FA2212002024117
Complainant is Blackstone TM L.L.C. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Joseph Lewis (“Respondent”), New Jersey, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <blackstonefsg.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 15, 2022; Forum received payment on December 15, 2022.
On December 15, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <blackstonefsg.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 December 16, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 5, 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@blackstonefsg.com. Also on December 16, 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 January 7, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
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 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 name is confusingly similar to its BLACKSTONE mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the term “fsg” (which stands for “financial services group”) and the “.com” generic top-level-domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website purports to offer financial services that compete with those of Complainant, but which are likely not legitimate services: an internet search indicates that the photographs of several of Respondent’s purported customers on Respondent’s “About us” page also appear on several other websites under different names. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent offers illegitimate, competing financial services. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLACKSTONE mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark BLACKSTONE and uses it to market financial services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 1996.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website purports to offer competing services.
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 name incorporates Complainant’s BLACKSTONE mark in its entirety and merely and adds the term “fsg” (which stands for “financial services group”) and the “.com” generic top-level-domain (“gTLD”). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic terms 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.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its BLACKSTONE mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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)). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as “Joseph Lewis”. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website purports to offer services in direct competition with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name that resolves in a webpage that directly competes with complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum Feb. 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
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 name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website purports to offer services that directly compete with those of Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to offer services in direct competition with a complainant for a registrant’s benefit can evince a finding of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blackstonefsg.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: January 7, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page