DECISION

 

Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Santosh shrivastava shrivastava

Claim Number: FA2605002222158

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Blackstone TM L.L.C. ("Complainant"), represented by Sarah Sue Landau of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Santosh shrivastava shrivastava ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <blacktone.site>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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 May 19, 2026; Forum received payment on May 19, 2026.

 

On May 19, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <blacktone.site> 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 May 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 10, 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@blacktone.site. Also on May 21, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 21, 2026.

 

On May 21, 2026, 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.

 

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. Blackstone is headquartered in New York City and also has offices worldwide, including in Cambridge, Washington DC, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Summit, Wayne, Toronto, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Mumbai, Abu Dhabi, Tel Aviv, Singapore, Seoul, Shanghai, Sydney, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Beijing, Dublin, and Luxembourg, employing thousands of 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 because it consists of a misspelling of the mark (the letter "s" is omitted), merely adding the ".site" 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 names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the BLACKSTONE mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website impersonates Complainant is used to phish for users' personal information. Specifically, the site: (1) offered purported financial services including real estate, private equity, private credit and infrastructure services that are closely related or identical to services provided by Blackstone; (2) offered such purported services under the name and marks BLACKSTONE, BLACKSTONE ALTERNATIVES, and BLACKSTONE PRIVATE MARKETS, which are identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant's BLACKSTONE marks; (3) displayed a black and white BLACKSTONE logo on the site without authorization that is nearly identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant's black and white logo ; (4) used Complainant's stock tickler BX, which identifies Complainant; (5) listed biographical information about Complainant including that it is "the world's largest alternative asset manager" and has "over $1 trillion in AUM"; and (6) contained a login and registration form requesting users to disclose their personal information, ostensibly for phishing purposes. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website impersonates Complainant and purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. The resolving website is used for phishing. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual/constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BLACKSTONE mark. Respondent engaged in typosquatting. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent states, in pertinent part:

1. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name without any bad faith or malicious intent, and any similarity to the Complainant's mark was entirely inadvertent and unintentional. The website files and content have already been completely deactivated and removed.

2. The Respondent does not wish to contest these administrative proceedings, submit a formal response, or defend the registration of the domain name.

3. In order to resolve this dispute immediately, efficiently, and amicably without further expenditure of administrative or legal resources, the Respondent hereby VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERS the domain name and CONSENTS TO THE IMMEDIATE TRANSFER of the domain name registration for <blacktone.site> to the Complainant, Blackstone TM L.L.C.

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact. The Panel however notes, obiter dictum, that the evidence set forth in the Complaint would appear to support Complainant's allegations.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

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."

 

In the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.

 

See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <blacktone.site> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: May 22, 2026