Blackstoneap.com

The timeline behind blackstoneap.com

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Patience Ethel Claim Number: FA2601002197963 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 Patience Ethel ("Respondent"), Singapore. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <blackstoneap.com>, registered with NameMart Pte. Ltd. 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 January 5, 2026; Forum received payment on January 5, 2026. On January 6, 2026, NameMart Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <blackstoneap.com> domain name is registered with NameMart Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameMart Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameMart Pte. Ltd. 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 January 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 26, 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@blackstoneap.com. Also on January 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 January 27, 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. 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 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 incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the letters "ap" (an abbreviation for "accounts payable"), together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). 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 and purports to offer financial services that compete with those of Complainant. Specifically, the resolving website includes a link to a purported whitepaper that was clearly used to impersonate Complainant, claiming it was created by "Blackstone Group," which it claimed is the world's largest alternative asset management company, established in 1985, with 1.2 trillion dollars in assets under management – facts that are identical or nearly identical to those regarding Complainant's size, year of founding, and assets under management. The purported white paper also includes an image of Blackstone's Chairman, CEO and Co-Founder Stephen A. Schwarzman and Blackstone's President and COO Jonathan Gray without authorization. The resolving website the site also contains a login and registration form requesting users to disclose their personal information, ostensibly for phishing purposes. 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. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual/constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BLACKSTONE mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark BLACKSTONE and uses it to market financial services. Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 1996. The disputed domain name was registered in 2025. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The resolving website impersonates Complainant and purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. 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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's BLACKSTONE mark in its entirety, merely adding the letters "ap" (which may be an abbreviation for "accounts payable"), together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or relevant or meaningless letters is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus 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."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has not been licensed or authorized by Complainant to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as "Patience Ethel". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The resolving website purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Previous Panels have found that use of a disputed domain name to offer goods or services in competition with those of a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use" where "Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Panels have held that registration and use of a disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to a competing website offering the same or similar goods or services demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA 1761403 (Forum December 29, 2017) (Finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website where it offered competing printer products); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website impersonates Complainant by referring to it. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names and that this constitutes 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 <blackstoneap.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: January 27, 2026 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.