Morgan Stanley v. Morgan Stanley Financial
Claim Number: FA0712001119592
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Baila
H. Celedonia of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., 1133
Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036-6799. Respondent is Morgan Stanley Financial (“Respondent”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <morganstanleyfinancial.com>, registered with Godaddy.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically December 14, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint December 17, 2007.
On December 14, 2007, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <morganstanleyfinancial.com> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, Inc. verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, Inc. registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On January 2, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 22, 2008, by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@morganstanleyfinancial.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 29, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:
1. The domain name that Respondent registered, <morganstanleyfinancial.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <morganstanleyfinancial.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <morganstanleyfinancial.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Morgan Stanley, is a well-known financial and investment company with over 600 offices in 28 countries around the world. Complainant offers a full range of financial and investment services to its clients. Complainant owns several registrations for the MORGAN STANLEY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (i.e. Reg. No. 1,707,196 issued August 11, 1992).
Respondent registered the <morganstanleyfinancial.com> domain name October 31, 2007. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website containing links to third-party websites, some of which provide services in direct competition with Complainant.
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."
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(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to 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.
Complainant established rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent’s <morganstanleyfinancial.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark.
Respondent’s domain name contains Complainant’s mark, omits a space,
adds a generic term associated with Complainant’s business, and adds the
generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
The Panel finds that a domain name that contains a complainant’s
mark and adds generic terms with an obvious relationship to a complainant’s
business is confusingly similar for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See
Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000)
(finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the
complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the
complainant’s business); see also Brambles
Indus. Ltd. v. Geelong Car Co. Pty. Ltd., D2000-1153 (WIPO Oct. 17, 2000)
(finding that the domain name <bramblesequipment.com> is confusingly
similar because the combination of the two words "brambles" and
"equipment" in the domain name implies that there is an association
with the complainant’s business). In
addition, the Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD and omitted spacing is
irrelevant in distinguishing a mark from a disputed domain name. See Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA
204063 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the
addition of a generic top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a
domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”); see also Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost
in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2002) (
“[I]t is a well established principle that generic top-level domains are
irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”). Therefore, the Panel finds the <morganstanleyfinancial.com> domain name confusingly similar
to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the <morganstanleyfinancial.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds in this case that Complainant has established a prima facie case. See G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (“Because Complainant’s Submission constitutes a prima facie case under the Policy, the burden effectively shifts to Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond means that Respondent has not presented any circumstances that would promote its rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”).
Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel assumes that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that the complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the evidence); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“Given Respondent’s failure to submit a substantive answer in a timely fashion, the Panel accepts as true all of the allegations of the complaint.”).
However, this Panel examines the evidence on record against the applicable Policy ¶ 4(c) elements before making a final determination relative to Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests.
Complainant contends that Respondent is neither commonly known by the <morganstanleyfinancial.com> domain name nor licensed to register domain names using the MORGAN STANLEY mark. Respondent’s WHOIS information identifies Respondent as Kenneth Boede of Morgan Stanley Financial. However, the Panel finds that without affirmative evidence of being commonly known by the <morganstanleyfinancial.com> domain name, the mere existance of WHOIS information is not sufficient to prove Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information because there was “no affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”); see also City News & Video v. Citynewsandvideo, FA 244789 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2004) (“Although Respondent’s WHOIS information lists its name as ‘citynewsandvideo,’ there is no evidence before the Panel to indicate that Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the disputed domain name <citynewsandvideo.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
The Panel finds that without evidence suggesting otherwise, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the <morganstanleyfinancial.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Cimock, FA 126829 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 13, 2003) (“Due to the fame of Complainant’s mark there must be strong evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name in order to find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). However, there is no evidence on record, and Respondent has not come forward with any proof to establish that it is commonly known as CELEBREXRX or <celebrexrx.com>.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the <morganstanleyfinancial.com> domain name to attract Internet users to the associated website containing various links to those who would seek to compete with Complainant. The Panel finds that intentionally diverting Internet users to a competing website by using a domain name, which is confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site); see also Or. State Bar v. A Special Day, Inc., FA 99657 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2001) (“Respondent's advertising of legal services and sale of law-related books under Complainant's name is not a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent is using a mark confusingly similar to the Complainant's to sell competing goods.”).
The Panel finds
that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent is using the <morganstanleyfinancial.com> domain name in order to intentionally attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark and offering third-party links to competitor’s websites. The Panel infers that Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users to these websites. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), the Panel finds such use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use. See Associated Newspapers Ltd. v. Domain Manager, FA 201976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 19, 2003) (“Respondent's prior use of the <mailonsunday.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably commercially benefited from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.’”); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain).
In addition, Respondent’s use of the <morganstanleyfinancial.com> domain name to benefit those who would seek to compete directly with Complainant is further evidence of bad faith. The Panel finds that a registered domain name used primarily to disrupt the business of a competitor demonstrates bad faith regitration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered the domain name in question to disrupt the business of the complainant, a competitor of the respondent); see also EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Latingrocer.com, FA 94384 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent’s sites pass users through to the respondent’s competing business).
The Panel finds that complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <morganstanleyfinancial.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: February 12, 2008.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum