Blackstone.host

The timeline behind blackstone.host

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. Zhao Qi Gui Claim Number: FA2603002210481 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 Zhao Qi Gui ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <blackstone.host> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with DNSPod, 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 March 16, 2026; Forum received payment on March 16, 2026. On March 16, 2026, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <blackstone.host> domain name is registered with DNSPod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DNSPod, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNSPod, 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 March 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 6, 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@blackstone.host. Also on March 17, 2026, the Chinese and English 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 7, 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING The Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Name is in Chinese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. Complainant filed the Complaint in English and submitted a Chinese translation of the Complaint. Forum served both English and Chinese Written Notices on Respondent. Respondent did not file a Response and did not comment on the language of the proceeding. The Panel notes the following circumstances: (1) Complainant is a United States entity and has filed a detailed Complaint in English together with a Chinese translation, thereby ensuring that Respondent has had a fair opportunity to understand the allegations; (2) Forum served both Chinese and English Written Notices on Respondent; (3) Respondent has not objected to the use of English as the language of the proceeding; (4) the Disputed Domain Name is composed entirely of Latin characters and English words; and (5) requiring Complainant to translate the entire proceeding into Chinese would impose an undue burden and delay. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 4.5.1. Having considered these circumstances, the Panel determines that English shall be the language of this proceeding. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant alleges: That it and its related and affiliated entities have, for decades, used and continue to use the BLACKSTONE name and mark 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, 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. That it owns trademark registrations for its BLACKSTONE Marks in connection with financial and related services in various countries, 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 EUTM, Irish, Indian, and U.K. registrations. The BLACKSTONE 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 <blackstone.host> incorporates Complainant's BLACKSTONE Mark in whole and is virtually identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's registered BLACKSTONE Marks. The addition of the gTLD ".host" 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 is not a licensee of Blackstone, nor has Respondent ever been authorized to register or use the BLACKSTONE Marks or the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that displays a bag of money above the word "BLACKSTONE" above a login screen and purports to offer financial services, including digital asset management services, which are closely related to Complainant's own financial services. The site contains a login and registration form requesting users to disclose their personal information, ostensibly for phishing purposes. Such use is not a legitimate or bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name. That the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent chose and registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known BLACKSTONE Marks and intended to capitalize on that confusion to attract Internet users to a website purporting to offer financial services similar to those offered by Blackstone. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name to operate a website that appears designed to phish for personal information is further evidence of bad faith. Respondent was aware, or should have been aware, of Complainant's BLACKSTONE Marks given their fame and worldwide 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, including U.S. Reg. Nos. 1,986,927, 2,198,568, 2,374,887, and 6,359,897 in Class 36 (financial services), Reg. Nos. 4,146,432 and 6,359,899 in Class 35, and Reg. No. 5,316,226 in Class 41, among others. Complainant's earliest U.S. registration, Reg. No. 2,374,887, was issued on August 8, 2000. 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 and employs thousands of people at offices worldwide. The BLACKSTONE Marks are among the most famous marks in the financial services industry. The Disputed Domain Name <blackstone.host> was registered with DNSPod, Inc. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant as Zhao Qi Gui of Anhui Province, China. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that displays the word "BLACKSTONE" alongside a bag of money graphic above a login screen, and purports to offer financial services including digital asset management—services closely related to Complainant's own financial services. The website contains a login and registration form requesting users to disclose personal information, which Complainant characterises as a phishing operation. 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 allegations. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at para. 4.3; 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 rights in the BLACKSTONE mark through its numerous trademark registrations, including U.S. Reg. No. 2,374,887 (issued August 8, 2000) and U.S. Reg. No. 6,359,897 in Class 36. 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"). The Disputed Domain Name <blackstone.host> incorporates Complainant's BLACKSTONE mark in its entirety, adding only the generic top-level domain ".host." The addition of a gTLD is irrelevant for purposes of distinguishing a disputed domain name from an established mark, because every domain must contain a top-level domain. 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). 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 show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 2.1. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not a licensee of Blackstone, has never been authorized to register or use the BLACKSTONE Marks, and has no relationship whatsoever with Blackstone. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Zhao Qi Gui"—a name that bears no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name, supporting a finding that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 in domain name DETROL.ORG because respondent had not offered any evidence and there was no proof suggesting that it was commonly known by the DETROL.ORG domain name). The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that displays a bag of money above the word "BLACKSTONE" above a login screen and purports to offer financial services, including digital asset management services—which are closely related to Complainant's own financial services—under a mark confusingly similar to the BLACKSTONE Marks. The use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a website offering services that are closely related to those offered by a complainant under a mark confusingly similar to the complainant's marks is not a legitimate or bona fide use of a domain name. See FC Online Marketing, Inc. v. Brett Ray, FA 1643100 (Forum Nov. 19, 2015) (use of confusingly similar domain name "to market, for commercial gain, services similar to those of Complainant," was not bona fide or legitimate use); Barclays PLC v. Craven Casper, FA 1811368 (Forum Nov. 12, 2018) (disputed domain name BARCLAYSBANKDELAWARE.US that resolved to site offering purported banking services that were identical or closely related to financial services offered by Complainant was not a bona fide or legitimate use). Moreover, the website contains a login and registration form requesting users to disclose personal information, which appears designed to phish for confidential information. The use of a disputed domain name to ostensibly phish for confidential information is not a legitimate use of the domain name or bona fide offering of goods and services. See 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 bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of disputed domain name pursuant to Policy). Respondent has failed to file a Response and has not rebutted Complainant's prima facie case. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in 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 industry. It is inconceivable that Respondent was unaware of Complainant's BLACKSTONE Marks when registering the Disputed Domain Name. The fame and worldwide registration of the BLACKSTONE Marks, coupled with Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name to operate a website purporting to offer financial services under the "BLACKSTONE" name, compels the conclusion that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's 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 a website that purports to offer financial services closely related to those offered by Blackstone, under a mark that is confusingly similar to Complainant's BLACKSTONE Marks, is evidence of bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). By operating such a website, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website. 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 BARCLAYSBANKDELAWARE.US that resolved to site offering purported banking services was used and registered in bad faith). Furthermore, the website's login and registration form, which requests users to disclose personal information, ostensibly constitutes a phishing operation. The use of a disputed domain name in connection with phishing is further evidence of bad faith registration and use. See 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); Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where respondent hosted a website that "duplicated Complainant's mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant's business … to perpetrate a fraud"). By causing initial interest confusion, Respondent's use and registration of the Disputed Domain Name disrupts the business of Blackstone, which is additional evidence of bad faith use and registration. 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 <blackstone.host> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: April 8, 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.