Morgan Stanley v. Armando Diaz
Claim Number: FA2006001898621
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Armando Diaz (“Respondent”), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <morganstanleyclientauth.com>, registered with Launchpad.com Inc.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 2, 2020; the Forum received payment on June 2, 2020.
On June 2, 2020, Launchpad.com Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <morganstanleyclientauth.com> domain name is registered with Launchpad.com Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Launchpad.com Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Launchpad.com 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 June 3, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 23, 2020 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@morganstanleyclientauth.com. Also on June 3, 2020, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 25, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Morgan Stanley, offers a full range of financial, investment, and wealth management services.
Complainant has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <morganstanleyclientauth.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark, adding only the descriptive terms “client auth” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <morganstanleyclientauth.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent does not have a website at the resolving webpage of the domain name.
Respondent registered and uses the <morganstanleyclientauth.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site. Additionally, Respondent fails to make active use of the domain name. Finally, Respondent registered the domain name with actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark.
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 MORGAN STANLEY.
Respondent holds the at-issue <morganstanleyclientauth.com> > domain name passively.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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”).
The at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has at least one USPTO registration for its MORGAN STANLEY trademark. Such registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”).
Respondent’s <morganstanleyclientauth.com> domain name contains Complainant’s <morganstanleyclientauth.com> trademark less its domain name impermissible space, followed by the terms “client” and “auth” all followed by the top-level domain name “.com”. The difference between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark is insufficient to distinguish the <morganstanleyclientauth.com> domain name from the MORGAN STANLEY trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <morganstanleyclientauth.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY trademark. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
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). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
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.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Armando Diaz” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <morganstanleyclientauth.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <morganstanleyclientauth.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See H - D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) (“The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as ‘Ilyas Aslan’ and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names”).
Furthermore, Respondent passively holds its <morganstanleyclientauth.com> domain name as browsing to the at-issue domain name fails to return an active webpage. Respondent’s holding of the at-issue domain name in this manner indicates 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 Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s non-use of the domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights and interests, Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively. Respondent’s passive holding of the confusingly similar <morganstanleyclientauth.com> domain name creates confusion as to the sponsorship of the domain name and is thereby disruptive to Complainant’s business. Respondent’s passive holding of the at-issue domain name thus indicates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and otherwise. See Love City Brewing Company v. Anker Fog / Love City Brewing Company, FA 1753144 (Forum Nov. 27, 2017) (Finding that Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by pointing Internet users to an expired webpage. This may create the perception that Complainant is closed, never existed, or is not a legitimate business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).); see also, Marsh Supermarkets Company, LLC, formerly known as Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. v. Choi Sungyeon, FA1312001532854 (Forum February 25, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <marshsupermarkets.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name”); see also, Red Bull GmbH v. Gutch, D2000-0766 (WIPO Sept. 21, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s expected use of the domain name <redbull.org> would lead people to believe that the domain name was connected with the complainant, and thus is the equivalent to bad faith use). The confusion created by Respondent as a result of registering and holding the at-issue domain name further exhibits Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names and the complainant’s AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark when it registered <morganstanleyclientauth.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from its incorporation of Complainant’s entire trademark into the at-issue domain name as well as from the wide and long standing notoriety of Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark in the global financial arena. Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar <morganstanleyclientauth.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in MORGAN STANLEY and thus in the domain name 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <morganstanleyclientauth.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: June 25, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page