DECISION

 

Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mu LA to

Claim Number: FA2606002227687

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Blackstone TM L.L.C. ("Complainant"), represented by Sarah Sue Landau, Esq. of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Mu LA to ("Respondent"), USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

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

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 16, 2026; Forum received payment on June 16, 2026.

 

On June 17, 2026, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <blackstonevip.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").

 

Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on June 17, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On June 17, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 7, 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@blackstonevip.com. Also on June 17, 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 July 8, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 Disputed Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That for decades, Complainant and its related and affiliated entities, licensees, and predecessors have used and continue to use the BLACKSTONE name and mark, alone or with other elements (the "BLACKSTONE Marks"), to identify themselves and the source of a wide variety of services in the financial industry, including asset and investment management services. Founded in 1985 by Peter G. Peterson and Stephen A. Schwarzman, Blackstone is today a world-renowned financial services company with over a trillion dollars' worth of assets under management, headquartered in New York City with offices worldwide. Complainant has extensively advertised and promoted its services under the BLACKSTONE Marks through various media, including its website at www.blackstone.com.

 

That it owns trademark registrations for the BLACKSTONE Marks in connection with financial and related services in various countries around the world, including U.S. Reg. Nos. 1,986,927, 2,198,568, 2,374,887, and 6,359,897 in Class 36, Reg. Nos. 4,146,432 and 6,359,899 in Class 35, and Reg. No. 5,316,226 in Class 41, as well as European Union, Irish, Indian, and U.K. registrations. As a result of Complainant's long, continuous, and widespread use of the BLACKSTONE Marks, the marks have developed substantial public recognition and are among the most famous marks in the financial services and asset management industries.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <blackstonevip.com>, which was registered decades after Complainant acquired widespread trademark rights, incorporates the BLACKSTONE Mark in whole and must be deemed virtually identical or confusingly similar to the registered BLACKSTONE Marks. The addition of the generic or descriptive term "vip," an abbreviation for "very important person," does not obviate the confusing similarity, and the addition of the gTLD ".com" is irrelevant in distinguishing the Disputed Domain Name from the BLACKSTONE Marks.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent did not engage in any legitimate business or commerce under the BLACKSTONE Marks or the Disputed Domain Name before Complainant established rights in its marks, and Respondent is not commonly known by either of those names. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, has never been authorized by Complainant to register or use the BLACKSTONE Marks or the Disputed Domain Name, and has no relationship whatsoever with Complainant. The Disputed Domain Name has ostensibly been used as part of a scheme to impersonate Complainant and phish for users' personal information. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name offers purported financial services, including purported trading services, that are closely related or identical to services provided by Complainant; offers those purported services under the names and marks BLACKSTONE and BLACKSTONE GROUP; displays without authorization a black BLACKSTONE logo that is nearly identical to Complainant's well-known black and white logo, together with a "B" logo similar to the "B" logo Complainant uses; includes biographical information about Complainant; and requests that users enter an e-mail address and password, ostensibly for phishing purposes. Such use is not a legitimate use of a domain name or a bona fide offering of goods and services, and the resulting initial interest confusion is disruptive to Complainant, its business, and its goodwill.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. It is more than a coincidence that Respondent chose and registered a domain name confusingly similar to the BLACKSTONE Marks; there can be no doubt that Respondent was aware of the BLACKSTONE Marks when it chose and registered the Disputed Domain Name, and in fact chose the name because it was confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known marks and intended to capitalize on that confusion to attract Internet users to the resolving website for similar services. By using the Disputed Domain Name ostensibly to impersonate Complainant and phish for personal information, Respondent seeks to suggest falsely that it is endorsed by or affiliated with Complainant, and such false association, passing off, and phishing are further evidence of bad faith registration and use. Even in the absence of impersonation and phishing, Respondent's use of the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name in connection with a website purporting to offer financial services closely related to those long offered by Complainant is further evidence of bad faith. By causing initial interest confusion, Respondent's registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name disrupt Complainant's business. Because the BLACKSTONE Marks are well known and registered in many countries throughout the world, Respondent is presumed to have had at least constructive knowledge of the marks at the time of registration.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for its BLACKSTONE Marks in multiple jurisdictions in connection with financial and related services, including U.S. Reg. Nos. 1,986,927, 2,198,568, 2,374,887, and 6,359,897 in Class 36, Reg. Nos. 4,146,432 and 6,359,899 in Class 35, and Reg. No. 5,316,226 in Class 41, as well as European Union, Irish, Indian, and U.K. registrations. Complainant has extensively used and promoted the BLACKSTONE Marks for decades in connection with financial and asset management services.

 

Blackstone is a world-renowned financial services company founded in 1985 by Peter G. Peterson and Stephen A. Schwarzman. It manages over a trillion dollars in assets, maintains offices worldwide, and operates its principal website at www.blackstone.com. The BLACKSTONE Marks are among the most famous marks in the financial services and asset management industries.

 

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <blackstonevip.com> on January 11, 2026, decades after Complainant established rights in its BLACKSTONE Marks. The Registrar's verification identifies the registrant as Mu LA to, with a claimed address in the United States. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and has not been licensed or otherwise authorized by Complainant to use the BLACKSTONE Marks.

 

At the time the Complaint was prepared, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website (the "Respondent's Website") that held itself out as "Blackstone" and "Blackstone Group" and presented itself as an online financial and cryptocurrency trading platform. Respondent's Website displayed a black-and-white BLACKSTONE logo nearly identical to Complainant's well-known logo, together with a "B" logo similar to the "B" logo used by Complainant, and reproduced biographical information about Complainant, including that it was founded in 1985, is headquartered in New York, is one of the world's leading alternative asset management firms, and manages assets exceeding one trillion U.S. dollars. Respondent's Website purported to offer spot and contract trading in cryptocurrencies and other instruments, together with deposit, exchange, and "KYC" identity-verification functions, and included a login page soliciting visitors' e-mail addresses or phone numbers and passwords. The Panel finds that Respondent's Website impersonated Complainant and was deployed to engage in "phishing," that is, to harvest Internet users' personal information and account credentials.

 

The Registrar has confirmed that the Disputed Domain Name has been locked and will remain locked for the duration of this proceeding.

 

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 formal 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 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).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established its rights in the BLACKSTONE mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its numerous trademark registrations with the USPTO and other national and regional trademark offices. See Blackstone Financial Services Inc. v. Black Stone Securities, FA 1214652 (Forum Sept. 17, 2008) ("Complainant has provided evidence of the registration of its BLACKSTONE mark with the USPTO. The Panel finds Complainant's registration sufficiently establishes its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)"); Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. James Frank, FA 1382633 (Forum May 18, 2011) ("the Panel finds that Complainant has established its rights in the BLACKSTONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by registering that mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,374,887 issued August 8, 2000)").

 

The Disputed Domain Name <blackstonevip.com> incorporates Complainant's BLACKSTONE mark in its entirety, adding only the term "vip" and the ".com" gTLD. The addition of a generic or laudatory term such as "vip," commonly understood as an abbreviation for "very important person," does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; if anything, the term suggests a premium or exclusive offering of the kind associated with Complainant's financial services business and so reinforces the false impression of a connection with Complainant. See Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Anna Boldoreva / Phisical Face, FA 1889989 (Forum Apr. 30, 2020) (finding <blackstonerussia.com> confusingly similar to the BLACKSTONE Marks); Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. hao de hao de / ha ha ha ha, FA 2166235 (Forum Aug. 11, 2025) (finding <black-stone.vip> confusingly similar to Complainant's BLACKSTONE mark, and that the insertion of a hyphen and the addition of the ".vip" gTLD did not distinguish the domain name).

 

The ".com" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded for purposes of the confusing similarity analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Morgan Stanley, FA 1169733 (Forum May 3, 2008) (finding addition of gTLD ".com" irrelevant for purposes of distinguishing disputed domain name from established mark); WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BLACKSTONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, after which the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.1.

 

The Registrar's verification identifies the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name as "Mu LA to," a name that bears no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by the BLACKSTONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the BLACKSTONE Marks in any manner. See SPTC, Inc. v. Bonanzas.com, Inc., FA 409895 (Forum Mar. 14, 2005) (no rights or legitimate interest in domain name SOTHEBYSAUCTIONS.COM because respondent was not known by SOTHEBY'S name); Pfizer Inc., and Pfizer Enterprises SARL v. Domain Purchase, FA 328187 (Forum Nov. 3, 2004) (no rights or legitimate interest where respondent offered no evidence and there was no proof suggesting it was commonly known by the domain name).

 

Respondent's Website held itself out as "Blackstone" and "Blackstone Group," displayed close imitations of Complainant's logos, reproduced Complainant's corporate biography, and purported to offer financial and cryptocurrency trading services of the kind offered by Complainant under its famous BLACKSTONE Marks, while soliciting visitors' e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and passwords through its login page. Passing oneself off as a complainant in order to harvest Internet users' personal information in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) ("In effect, Respondent attempted to pass itself off as Complainant online. Such blatant unauthorized use of Complainant's mark is evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name"); Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Forum June 12, 2006) (respondent's use of disputed domain name to phish for personal information of Internet users was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); Barclays PLC v. Craven Casper, FA 1811368 (Forum Nov. 12, 2018) (disputed domain name that resolved to site offering purported banking services identical or closely related to financial services offered by complainant was not a bona fide or legitimate use).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and Respondent, having failed to submit a Response, has come forward with no evidence to rebut that showing. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The BLACKSTONE Marks are among the most famous marks in the financial services and asset management industries, and Complainant's rights in them predate Respondent's January 11, 2026 registration of the Disputed Domain Name by decades. Respondent did not select the Disputed Domain Name at random: it paired the BLACKSTONE mark with the laudatory term "vip" and used the resulting domain name to operate a purported financial and cryptocurrency trading platform that copied Complainant's names, logos, and corporate biography. The Panel concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the BLACKSTONE Marks at the time of registration. See Morgan Stanley v. Chan, FA 244123 (Forum Apr. 23, 2004) (respondents likely had knowledge of complainant's MORGAN STANLEY marks prior to registration of domain name due to complainant's "long-standing use and fame" of marks).

 

Respondent's use of the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name in connection with Respondent's Website, which held itself out as Complainant and advertised financial and trading services of the same kind as those offered by Complainant under the BLACKSTONE Marks, demonstrates an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the BLACKSTONE Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website, within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S Linx, FA 203126 (Forum Nov. 20, 2003) ("Respondent registered and used the … domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶… 4(b)… (iv) because Respondent is using a domain name that is confusingly similar to the … [complainant's] mark for commercial benefit by diverting Internet users to the …[respondent's] website, which sells competing goods and services"); Barclays PLC v. Craven Casper, FA 1811368 (Forum Nov. 12, 2018) (disputed domain name that resolved to site offering purported banking services identical or closely related to financial services offered by complainant was used and registered in bad faith).

 

Moreover, the record establishes that Respondent's Website was an instrument of phishing. Respondent's Website impersonated Complainant, down to its logos and corporate biography, and solicited visitors' e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and passwords through its login and account functions, in order to harvest users' personal information and account credentials. The use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant's mark to perpetrate a phishing scheme of this kind is paradigmatic bad faith registration and use. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.4; Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith registration and use because respondent used domain name to phish for personal information from Internet users).

 

By causing initial interest confusion among Internet users seeking Complainant, Respondent's registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name also disrupt Complainant's business, which is additional evidence of bad faith. See Chiquita Canyon, LLC v. Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC, FA 1607881 (Forum Apr. 22, 2015) (bad faith use and registration found for domain name that caused initial interest confusion).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under 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 <blackstonevip.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: July 9, 2026