Blackstonne.org

The timeline behind blackstonne.org

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. George D. Carbone / Roadhouse Grill Claim Number: FA2406002103291 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 George D. Carbone / Roadhouse Grill ("Respondent"), South Carolina, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <blackstonne.org>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com. 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 24, 2024; Forum received payment on June 24, 2024. On June 24, 2024, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <blackstonne.org> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 June 25, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 15, 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@blackstonne.org. Also on June 25, 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 July 16, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows: Complainant, Blackstone TM L.L.C., is a financial services company focusing on asset management including investment vehicles. Complainant asserts rights to the BLACKSTONE mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") as well as other trademark registrars worldwide. Respondent's <blackstonne.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it contains an overt misspelling of Complainant's BLACKSTONE mark and only adds the ".org" generic top-level domain to form the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <blackstonne.org> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's BLACKSTONE mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website impersonating Complainant by displaying Complainant's trademark and logo, and offering purported financial services that are closely related or identical to those services offered by Complainant under a domain name that is confusingly similar to BLACKSTONE. Respondent's typosquatting (i.e., intentional misspelling) of Complainant's BLACKSTONE marks is further evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Respondent registered and uses the <blackstonne.org> domain name in bad faith. Respondent intends to capitalize on the confusingly similarity between Complainant's mark and the at-issue domain name it created to attract internet users to Respondent's <blackstonne.org> website. Respondent registered and uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant in furtherance of phishing. Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BLACKSTONE mark. Respondent's offering of likely fake services nevertheless shows Respondent's bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent causes initial interest confusion and engaged in typosquatting. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the BLACKSTONE trademark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the BLACKSTONE trademark. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website pretending to be sponsored by Complainant and purportedly offering competing services. 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant shows that it has USPTO and as well as other national registrations for its BLACKSTONE trademark. Any of Complainant's BLACKSTONE trademark registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in the BLACKSTONE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) ("Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world."); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jimmy Yau, FA 1764034 (Forum Jan. 25, 2018) ("The Panel finds that complainant has rights in BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO."). Respondent's <blackstonne.org> domain name contains a misspelled or mistyped version of Complainant's BLACKSTONE trademark followed by the ".org" top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the <blackstonne.org> domain name from Complainant's BLACKSTONE trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that <blackstonne.org> is confusingly similar to Complainant's BLACKSTONE trademark. See Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP v. Mark Loadest, FA 2101997 (Forum July 9, 2024)(finding that where the at-issue domain name consists of a misspelling of Complainant's mark merely adding the ".co" country code top-level domain, such changes do not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS information for <blackstonne.org> identifies the domain name's registrant as "George D. Carbone / Roadhouse Grill" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <blackstonne.org> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <blackstonne.org> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website impersonating Complainant by displaying Complainant's trademark and logo, and offering purported financial services that are closely related or identical to those services offered by Complainant under a domain name that is confusingly similar to BLACKSTONE. Respondent's use the of the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business);see also, Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent uses the confusingly similar <blackstonne.org> domain name to address a website that pretends to be sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant. The website is used to help facilitate Respondent in passing itself off as Complainant to deceive internet users into falsely believing that the <blackstonne.org> domain name, and its referenced website, are affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's website offers financial services that are closely related to services offered by Complainant under its BLACKSTONE trademark. Respondent's use of <blackstonne.org> is disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its <blackstonne.org> domain name and Complainant's BLACKSTONE trademark. Respondent's use of the <blackstonne.org> domain name demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant's website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). Notably, it matters not that the services offered via the <blackstonne.org> website may be fake. See Acton Educational Services d/b/a West Coast Univ. v. West Coast Univ. Int'l Inc., FA 1191541 (Forum July 2, 2008) (website offering fake educational services was not a legitimate use of domain name). Additionally, there is evidence that Respondent may be using the at-issue domain name to facilitate the collection of private data from third parties through a login page featured on the <blackstonne.org> website. Respondent's intent to phish for personal information via <blackstonne.org> further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy. See FIL Limited v. Li jie, FA 1718900 (Forum Mar. 17, 2017) (finding the <fidelity.cn.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith as it resolved to a website which mimicked the complainant's login page in an attempt to gain Internet users' personal and financial information). Next, Respondent is engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark or other identifying text and then uses the resulting string to form a domain name. The domain name registrant hopes that internet users will: 1) inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for content related to the domain name's target trademark and/or 2) in viewing the domain name will mistakenly assume such domain name is associated with its target trademark. Respondent's at-issue domain name contains a recognizable variant of Complainant's trademark where an extra "n" is inserted into the mark. Here, it is predicable that a number of internet user will type <blackstonne.org> by inadvertently double tapping the "n" key when attempting to guess Complainant's genuine domain name(s). Typosquatting is, in itself, indicative of bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BLACKSTONE mark when it registered <blackstonne.org> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is inferred from the worldwide notoriety of Complainant's BLACKSTONE trademark and from Respondent use of the domain name to address a website that appears as if it is sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's registration and use of <blackstonne.org> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in BLACKSTONE further shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); 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). 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 <blackstonne.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: July 17, 2024 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.