DECISION

 

Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Catrin Mohr

Claim Number: FA2402002082897

 

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 Catrin Mohr ("Respondent"), Germany.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bepif.info> ('the Domain Name'), registered with PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot.

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 7, 2024; Forum received payment on February 7, 2024.

 

On February 8, 2024, PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bepif.info> Domain Name is registered with PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot has verified that Respondent is bound by the PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot 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 February 8, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 28, 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@bepif.info. Also on February 8, 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 February 29, 2024 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows.

 

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BEPIF, registered, inter alia, in the EU for financial services since 2021.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2024 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark adding only the gTLD .info which does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has no permission from the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark.

 

The site attached to the Domain Name was redirected to the Complainant's own web site. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith as Respondent intentionally attracts Internet users creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark, impersonating the Complainant and disrupting the Complainant's business.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

 The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark BEPIF, registered, inter alia, in the EU for financial services since 2021.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2024 was redirected to the Complainant's own web site.

 

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

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant's BEPIF mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the EU for financial services since 2021) and the gTLD .info.

 

The gTLD .info does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is identical for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (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).

 

Redirecting Internet users to the Complainant's website without the Complainant's authorisation is not bona fide use or legitimate non commercial fair use. See Bank of America Corporation v Show Girls, FA 1783413 (Forum May 30, 2018).

 

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Redirecting a domain name containing the Complainant's trade mark to the Complainant's own web site is commonly held to be bad faith registration and use. See McKinsey Holdings Inc. v Mgr. Jakob Bystron, FA 1330650 (Forum July 23, 2010).

 

As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4 (b)(iii) and (iv).

 

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 <bepif.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: February 29, 2024