The Complainant is BlackRock, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Day Pitney LLP, United States.
The Respondents are Wu Jin, wutech rsl, Sekir Lui, and Janpi Suree, brur sinq sarl, Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain name The disputed domain name The disputed domain name The above registrars are collectively referred to as the “Registrars” in the remainder of this Decision. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 25, 2021. On February 26, 2021, the Center transmitted by emails to the Registrars requests for registrar verifications in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 26 and 27, 2021, and March 1, 2021, the Registrars transmitted by emails to the Center their verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 1, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 2, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amended Complaint, satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 3, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 23, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 24, 2021. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on March 30, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Consolidation of Proceedings A preliminary question arises of whether the proceedings, against three different underlying registrants as identified by the Registrars, may properly be consolidated into a single proceeding. The relevant considerations in this regard include whether the domain names are under common control and whether consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties (see paragraph 4.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are likely to be under common control because of factors including the following: the same naming convention in respect of each of the disputed domain names, namely the combination of the term “blackrock” with “hks”; the fact that all three of the disputed domain names were registered within a short time period, namely between November 17 and December 11, 2020; and the fact that the disputed domain names On the basis of the above evidence, and noting that none of the Respondents have denied that the disputed domain names are under common control or have otherwise disputed the consolidation of the proceedings, the Panel finds that all three disputed domain names are more likely than not to be under common control and that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. The proceedings will be consolidated accordingly. 5. Factual Background The Complainant is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, United States and headquartered in New York, United States. It is an international provider of asset management and investment services. The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark BLACKROCK in a variety of territories. Those registrations include, for example: - United States trademark number 2417737 for the word mark BLACKROCK, registered on January 2, 2001, for investment management and other services in International Class 36; and - Hong Kong, China trademark number 200212772 for the word mark BLACKROCK, registered on May 15, 2001, for asset management and other services in International Class 36. The disputed domain name None of the disputed domain names appears to have resolved to any active website. However, the Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain name The Complainant states that it was founded in 1988 and is one of the world’s leading asset management and investment advisory firms, with funds of over USD 8 trillion under management. The Complainant states that its clients include governments, organizations, and individuals worldwide and that it has widely used and promoted its BLACKROCK trademark, which has become one of its major assets. The Complainant submits that each of the disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to its BLACKROCK trademark. It observes that each of the disputed domain names comprises that BLACKROCK trademark in its entirety together with the term “hks”, which appears to reference Hong Kong, China and that neither this addition nor the hyphen included in one of the disputed domain names is effective to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of any of the disputed domain names. The Complainant states that it has never authorized the Respondents to use its BLACKROCK trademark, that the Respondents have not commonly been known by those names, and that the Respondents are making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of any of the disputed domain names. The Complainant submits that each of the disputed domain names has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant provides evidence of an email scam to which it was alerted on December 3, 2020. In particular, a member of the public was contacted on LinkedIn by an individual claiming to be a senior Director of the Complainant. After providing her email address, the member of the public received various emails from “[…]@blackrockhks.com” purporting to come from the Vice Chairman of the Complainant’s Hong Kong, China operation. The Complainant employs an individual of this name in a senior role. One of these emails invited the intended victim to complete various forms, including a funding application for USD 2 million. This application form, which requested bank details and other sensitive financial information, appeared to be a genuine form emanating from the Complainant and referred to a supposed website at “www.blackrockhks.com”. The intended victim notified the Complainant of her suspicions about this correspondence and the Complainant procured the suspension of the disputed domain name The Complainant further submits that there is no conceivable legitimate use of the disputed domain names which comprise only the Complainant’s BLACKROCK trademark and the term “hks”. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 7. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are: (i) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and The Complainant has established that it has registered trademarks rights in the mark BLACKROCK. Each of the disputed domain names comprises the mark BLACKROCK together with the additional term “hks”. Whether or not this term designates Hong Kong, China as the Complainant suggests, the Complainant’s BLACKROCK trademark is recognizable in each of the disputed domain names and the addition of the term ”hks” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel therefore finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. However, the Respondents have not filed a Response in this proceeding and have not submitted any explanation for their registration and use of the disputed domain names, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on their part in the disputed domain names, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, the Panel finds that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of any of the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the Complainant’s mark BLACKROCK is widely known in connection with asset management and investment services and that each of the disputed domain names is inherently misleading, as inevitably implying a legitimate connection with the Complainant. Each of the disputed domain names therefore constitutes an impersonation of the Complainant. In the light of the above, and of the use to which the Respondents have put the disputed domain name The Panel further finds that the Respondents have used the disputed domain name Having already found that that all three of the disputed domain names are likely to be under common control, and noting once again the Respondents’ lack of any reply to the Complaint, the Panel further infers that the disputed domain names The Panel therefore finds that all three of the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. 8. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names Steven A. Maier
(ii) that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Sole Panelist
Date: April 12, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy