DECISION

 

Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Amal Nelson

Claim Number: FA2401002077603

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Blackstone TM L.L.C. ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Amal Nelson ("Respondent"), Vatican City.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <gsow-icav.com>, registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 3, 2024; Forum received payment on January 3, 2024.

 

On January 3, 2024, NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <gsow-icav.com> domain name is registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED 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 January 4, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 24, 2024 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@gsow-icav.com. Also on January 4, 2024, 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 25, 2024, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

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. For over 15 years, Complainant has used the name and mark GSO, alone or with other elements in connection with financial services, including but not limited to asset management and financial advisory services, and the offering of various investment funds. For example, until recently, Complainant's global credit business went by the name GSO Capital Partners and Complainant continues to use the mark GSO in its fund names, including in particular the GSO Whitney ICAV Alternative Investment Fund. Complainant asserts rights in the GSO mark through its registration in the United States in 2017. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its GSO mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the term "w-icav" (which is a reference to Whitney ICAV), together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its GSO mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name was used to impersonate Complainant and its GSO Whitney ICAV Alternative Investment Fund. Specifically, the resolving website: (1) purported to offer financial services, including investment management and/or financial advisory services, which are identical to services offered by Complainant; (2) offered such purported services under the name and mark GSO Whitney ICAV, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's GSO Whitney ICAV Fund (which is a closed fund open only to investments directly through Complainant); (3) listed Complainant's GSO Whitney ICAV Fund's legitimate Bank of Ireland registration number; (4) used Complainant's GSO Whitney ICAV Fund actual registered address; (5) claimed it was founded in the same year that Complainant's GSO Whitney ICAV Fund was founded; (6) purported to offer other financial services associated with Complainant and its registered GSO mark; and (7) invited customers to open an account via a sign-up form, ostensibly to phish for the personal information of investors. The Bank of Ireland has issued a warning regarding the scheme associated with the disputed domain name,

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent impersonates Complainant to engage in phishing. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the GSO mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the mark GSO dating back to at least 2017 and uses it to offer financial services around the world.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2023.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of phishing. The resolving website displays information about Complainant and its products.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

According to 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"): "In specific limited instances, while not a replacement as such for the typical side-by-side comparison, where a panel would benefit from affirmation as to confusing similarity with the complainant's mark, the broader case context such as website content trading off the complainant's reputation, … may support a finding of confusing similarity."

 

Here, Complainant presents evidence showing that the resolving website contains elements likely intended to make consumers believe that Respondent's site is somehow affiliated with Complainant. This supports the side-by-side comparison below.

 

The disputed domain incorporates Complainant's GSO mark in its entirety, merely adding the term "w-icav" (which is a reference to Whitney ICAV), together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or descriptive terms and/or relevant or meaningless letters and/or hyphens 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 Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its GSO mark in any way. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: 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, FA 1613011 (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 "Amal Nelson". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name is used in furtherance of phishing. Specifically, the resolving website displays elements intended to mislead users into thinking that it is associated with Complainant, and it invites 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 name 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 name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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 disputed domain name is 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 name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website displays information about Complainant and its products. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Finally, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name is:

Amal Nelson

+56.019438568

861 Drumneath Spur

Brightlingsea

Staffordshire

VA

3638

 

According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:

 

Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.

 

This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.

 

From publicly available databases, the Panel has found that "+56" is the telephone code for Chile; the code "VA" can designate Virginia, USA, or Vatican city; Brightlingsea is not in Staffordshire, UK, nor in Virginia, USA, nor in the Vatican City; "3637" is not a valid postal code in the US or UK or Vatican City.

 

Thus the Panel finds that that WHOIS information is false. This can indicate bad faith registration and use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. John Doe, FA 1339545 (Forum Sept., 2010 ) ("The Panel also takes into account that the entity that Responded to the Complaint would not be the registrant of the disputed domain names for the instant proceedings. Therefore, that circumstance is also taken by the Panel as indication of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by providing false or misleading WHOIS information to the registrar."); see also Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use on this ground also.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <gsow-icav.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: January 25, 2024