DECISION

 

Blue Owl Capital Holdings LLC v. Obinna Okechukwu

Claim Number: FA2604002213675

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Blue Owl Capital Holdings LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Johanna Schmitt of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Obinna Okechukwu ("Respondent"), Nigeria.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <blueowlcapitals.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with Cloudflare, Inc.

 

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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 1, 2026; Forum received payment on April 1, 2026.

 

On April 2, 2026, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <blueowlcapitals.com> domain name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, Inc. 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 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 27, 2026 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@blueowlcapitals.com. Also on April 6, 2026, 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 April 28, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 is an American company founded in 2021 that provides specialist investment services under the BLUE OWL CAPITAL mark. Complainant has rights in the BLUE OWL CAPITAL mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 6,541,309, registered on October 26, 2021).  Respondent's <blueowlcapitals.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BLUE OWL CAPITAL because it contains a minor misspelling of the mark, merely adding the letter "s" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). 

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <blueowlcapitals.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the BLUE OWL CAPITAL mark. Respondent does not use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding the Domain Name resolved to a website ("Respondent's Website") where Respondent purports to offer financial services that are in competition with Complainant's offerings however the Complainant submits that the purported entity may not exist and in fact may have been used to defraud the Complainant's customers.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <blueowlcapitals.com> domain name in bad faith as it disrupts Complainant's business by offering competing services. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BLUE OWL CAPITAL mark prior to registering the Domain Name, given the fame and use of the mark as well as the Respondent's use of the Domain Name to offer competing services.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the BLUE OWL CAPITAL mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BLUE OWL CAPITAL mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

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 3.1 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

Complainant has rights in the BLUE OWL CAPITAL mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 6,541,309, registered on October 26, 2021). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).").

 

The Panel finds that the <blueowlcapitals.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the BLUE OWL CAPITAL mark because it contains a minor misspelling of the BLUE OWL CAPITAL mark, merely adding the letter "s" and the ".com" gTLD. Changing a single letter in a mark is insufficient to negate confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. David, FA 104980 (Forum Apr. 10, 2002) ("The misspelling of a famous mark does not diminish the confusingly similar nature between the marks and the disputed domain names."); see Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1610122 (Forum July 9, 2015) (finding, "The domain name differs from the mark only in that the domain name substitutes the letter 'a' in the word 'steak' with the letter 'c' and adds 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.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

        

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the BLUE OWL CAPITAL mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State 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)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists "Obinna Okechukwu" as registrant of record. Furthermore, while the Respondent's Website suggests that it is operated by an entity called BLUE OWL CAPITALS, the Complaint provides uncontested evidence that this entity does not exist, noting that there appears to be no third party records of such an entity existing and the photos of the executives on the Respondent's Website are fake stock photos. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding redirected to the Respondent's Website where Respondent purported to offer financial services including investment services, in direct competition with Complainant. The Panel also notes that there is evidence that the Respondent's Website is fraudulent as there is no evidence of a legitimate entity (including the named Respondent) operating the Respondent's Website and providing the services that the Respondent's Website purports to provide. Indeed, as noted in the paragraph above, the Respondent's Website contains fake stock photos of the executives supposedly offering the services.

 

The use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect to a purportedly competing website does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). See also Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) ("Respondent replicates Complainant's website and displays Complainant's products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, August 1, 2025, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's BLUE OWL CAPITAL mark which had been in use since 2021.  Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that consists of a minor misspelling of the BLUE OWL CAPITAL mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website offering financial services that compete with the Complainant other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the BLUE OWL CAPITAL mark.  This is particularly the case given the uncontested evidence in the Complainant that there is no entity known as "Blue Owl Capitals" offering financial services.  In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent used the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to Respondent's own website where Respondent offers financial and investment services in direct competition with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent's competing website can show bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt the complainant's business by diverting Internet users from the complainant's website to the respondent's website where it offered competing printer products).  Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). 

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <blueowlcapitals.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: April 29, 2026