Morgan Stanley v. Huiber
Claim Number: FA1606001678785
Complainant: Morgan Stanley of New York, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent: Huiber of Secaucus, US.
Respondent Representative: Jastin Jastin
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.
Registrars: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Eleni Lappa, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: June 9, 2016
Commencement: June 13, 2016
Default Date: June 28, 2016
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The Complainant submits that:
Neither the name MORGAN STANLEY nor the disputed domain name are
part of the Respondent’s name;
Respondent does not actually engage in any legitimate business or commerce under the name MORGAN STANLEY or the disputed domain name; and
Respondent is not commonly known by either of those names. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to register or use the MORGAN STANLEY marks or the disputed domain name. Respondent’s domain name does not resolve to an active website. Respondent is passively holding the domain name, which is not a legitimate or bona fide use.
Complainant’s MORGANSTANLEY marks are so wellknown that the only
plausible inference that can be derived from Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to take advantage of and intentionally trade on the goodwill associated with Complainant’s marks and that is not a legitimate or bona fide use of a domain name.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
1. The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.1] for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use
2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.2]
3. [if URS] The domain name(s) was registered and is being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3]
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<morgan-stanley.top>
Eleni Lappa, Examiner
Dated: June 28, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page