Morgan Stanley v. Domain Administrator / China Capital Investment Limited
Claim Number: FA1703001723382
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / China Capital Investment Limited (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <morganstanleyvalencia.com>, registered with Interweb Advertising D.B.A. Profile Builder.
The undersigned certifies he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 23, 2017; the Forum received payment on March 23, 2017.
After numerous requests, the Registrar, Interweb Advertising D.B.A. Profile Builder, has not confirmed to the Forum that the <morganstanleyvalencia.com> domain name is registered with Interweb Advertising D.B.A. Profile Builder or that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Registrar’s non-compliance has been reported to ICANN. The Forum’s standing instructions are to proceed with this dispute.
On March 31, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 20, 2017 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@morganstanleyvalencia.com. Also on March 31, 2017, 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 April 27, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, 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
a. The manner in which the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. (UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix)(1); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(i)).
i. Complainant Morgan Stanley offers a full range of financial, investment, and wealth management services to a broad spectrum of clients through a unique combination of institutional and retail capabilities. With over 1,000 offices in over 40 countries, including the United States and China, and over 55,000 employees worldwide, Complainant offers truly global access to financial markets and advice.
ii. Complainant is the owner of the MORGAN STANLEY family of marks, which represent some of the most famous marks in the financial world.
iii. Complainant has used marks containing or comprising MORGAN STANLEY in connection with various financial and related services since at least as early as 1935, and the marks remain in wide-spread use today worldwide.
iv. In 2015, Complainant had net revenues of over US$ 35,000,000,000, nearly half of which revenues were attributable to its wealth management businesses.
v. Complainant has been a publicly traded company listed on the New York Stock Exchange since 1986, with over 11 million shares currently traded daily.
vi. Complainant is the owner of the domain name MORGANSTANLEY.COM, as well as thousands of variations thereof across a broad spectrum of gTLDs and ccTLDs. Complainant first registered MORGANSTANLEY.COM in 1996. The MORGANSTANLEY.COM domain name resolves to Complainant’s primary website, located at www.morganstanley.com, which website for nearly twenty years has provided information about Complainant and its financial services.
vii. As a result of extensive use, promotion, and advertisement, the MORGAN STANLEY marks are well-known to consumers and famous.
viii. In fact, MORGAN STANLEY has ranked among Tenet Partners (f/k/a CoreBrand) 100 Top Brands in the United States for at least the past two years, and was ranked numbers 26 and 24, respectively, in Brand Finances 2014 and 2015 Banking 500 global brands..
ix. A number of panels of the Forum have recognized that MORGAN STANLEY is a well-known mark. See, e.g., Morgan Stanley v. jorge Stephan, FA 1219168 (Forum Sept. 12, 2008); Morgan Stanley v. Meow, FA 671304 (Forum May 22, 2006); Morgan Stanley v. Albert Jackson, FA 244092 (Forum Apr. 19, 2004). And at least one prior DRS expert has held: “The evidence that has been presented by the Complainant establishes that its ‘Morgan Stanley’ trade mark has become very well-known on an international basis, having been used extensively and continuously since 1935.” Morgan Stanley v. Morgan Stanley Latin America, LLC, DRS 3070 (Nominet Dec. 15, 2005).
x. The MORGAN STANLEY mark is an extremely important asset with enormous good will that inures to the benefit of Complainant.
xi. Complainant owns registrations for its MORGAN STANLEY marks for financial services and related goods and services in countries all over the world, including U.S. Registration Nos. 1707196 and 4470389.
xii. These trademark registrations “conclusively prove[] Complainant’s rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i).” Morgan Stanley v. Denve Dallas, FA 1342149 (Forum Oct. 5, 2010).
xiii. Moreover, Complainant established its rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark decades before Respondent registered the disputed domain name.
xiv. Respondent is the owner of the disputed domain name MORGANSTANLEYVALENCIA.COM. The disputed domain name, which incorporates Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark in whole, must be deemed virtually identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered MORGAN STANLEY marks. See Global Esprit Inc. v. Living 4, D2004-0318 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2004) (confusion found in domain name that incorporated complainant’s mark in full).
xv. Respondent’s domain name features Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark in its entirety and merely adds the geographically descriptive word “Valencia.” The addition of a geographically descriptive word does nothing to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark. See The Prudential Insurance Company of America v J.J. Corp., FA 95509 (Forum Oct. 6, 2000) (“Adding the generic or descriptive words ‘brazil’ and ‘america’ to the Complainant’s ‘PRUDENTIAL’ mark does not alleviate the confusing similarity”).
xvi. The addition of the gTLD “.com” and elimination of spaces also are irrelevant in distinguishing the disputed domain name from Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY marks. 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 because every domain must contain top level domain name); Bond & Co. Jewelers, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 937650 (Forum Apr. 30, 2007) (elimination of spaces between terms does not establish distinctiveness from complainant’s mark).
b. Why Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name that is the subject of the Complaint. (UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(ii)).
i. Upon information and belief, neither MORGAN STANLEY nor the disputed domain name is part of Respondent’s name. Additionally, upon information and belief, prior to the time Complainant established rights in its MORGAN STANLEY marks, Respondent did not actually engage in any business or commerce under the name MORGAN STANLEY or the disputed domain name, and Respondent was not commonly known by those names. See 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); 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).
ii. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor has Respondent ever been authorized by Complainant to register or use the MORGAN STANLEY mark or the disputed domain name. Indeed, Respondent has no relationship whatsoever to Complainant. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000- 0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent was not a licensee of complainant).
iii. Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services or for any legitimate or fair use.
iv. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that attempts to engage in phishing or place malware on the Internet user’s computer device by proffering a fake error message and encouraging Internet users to disclose personal information to a fake Microsoft technician. This is not a legitimate or bona fide use of a domain name. See Twitter, Inc. v. Jae Gong, FA 1630753 (Forum Sept. 4, 2015) (“Respondent fails to use the <tiwtter.com> domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the resolving website to . . . attempt to deliver malware to Internet users”); 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).
v. Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY marks are so well-known 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. That is not a legitimate or bona fide use of a domain name. See Drexel University v. David Brouda, D2001-0067 (WIPO Mar. 20, 2001) (“rights or legitimate interest cannot be created where the user of the domain names at issue would not choose such a name unless he was seeking to create an impression of association with the complainant”).
vi. In Reservation Ltd / Privacy Protection Service, Inc. d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org:
“Complainant’s VICEROY trademark has been extensively used and advertised for many years in association with upscale hotels and associated services and is well known in relation to such services. Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name comprised of Complainant’s well-known trademark and the geographical terms ‘Yas’ and ‘Abu Dhabi’ which describe the geographical location of Complainant's hotel in the United Arab Emirates. Complainant asserts that based on the geographical terms associated with Complainant’s VICEROY trademark in the disputed domain name and the contents of the web page associated with the disputed domain name Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent would not have chosen the disputed domain name unless Respondent was seeking to intentionally trade on the goodwill associated with Complainant’s VICEROY trademark. Accordingly, Respondent cannot establish a bona fide interest in the disputed domain name.” D2014-0919 (WIPO July 28, 2014). Similarly here, Respondent cannot establish a bona fide or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, which incorporates in full one of the most famous marks in the financial industry. See Morgan Stanley v. Morgan Stanley Latin America, LLC, DRS 3070 (Nominet Dec. 15, 2005) (“Given the strong reputation of the ‘Morgan Stanley’ name and business, and based on the facts and circumstances set out in the Complaint, I cannot think of any justification for the Respondent’s registration or use of the Domain Name”).
vii. Such use of the disputed domain name also causes “initial interest confusion,” which is disruptive to Complainant, its business, and goodwill in the MORGAN STANLEY marks. This also is not a legitimate use of a domain name or bona fide offering of goods and services. See Morgan Stanley v. Patrick Kerr, DRS 5306 (Nominet Feb. 11, 2008) (“as the Complainant suggests, the reason that an internet user would arrive at the Respondent’s website in the first place is likely to be that he or she was looking for the Complainant’s website or for some information in connection with its Dean Witter branded products and services. Thus they would have succumbed to what is often referred to as ‘initial interest confusion.’ This is a case where the Domain Name [DEANWITTER.CO.UK] is such that people would automatically assume that the Complainant owned or operated it. Accordingly, I find that the circumstances indicate that the type of confusion described in paragraph 3(a)(ii) of the Policy is either occurring or likely to occur”); Retail Royalty Co. and AE Direct Co LLC v. A K, FA 1580871 (Forum Oct. 31, 2014) (no legitimate interest or bona fide offering with respect to domain name that caused initial interest confusion).
viii. Lastly, Respondent does not have any legitimate rights in the disputed domain name given the prior use and registration of Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY marks by Complainant and its affiliates and predecessors-in-interest in numerous countries throughout the world. Complainant’s prior use and registration of such marks give Respondent actual, or at a minimum constructive, knowledge of such use and 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, and fact that marks were registered with USPTO provided constructive notice to respondent of complainant’s rights in MORGAN STANLEY marks).
c. Why the domain name should be considered as having been registered and used in bad faith. (UDRP Rule 3(b)(ix)(3); ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(iii)).
i. It is clearly more than a coincidence that Respondent chose and registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY marks. Complainant has a long and well established reputation in the MORGAN STANLEY marks through its exclusive use in the financial and investment services industries throughout the world. There can be no doubt that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY marks when he or she chose and registered the disputed domain name, and in fact chose the domain name because it was confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known marks and intended to capitalize on that confusion to attract Internet users to the resolving website. This alone constitutes evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. See Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. JalapenoWare LLC, FA 1302464 (Forum Feb. 22, 2010) (bad faith demonstrated by confusing use of famous DISNEY mark in domain names DISENY.COM and DSINEY.COM); Carey Int’l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) (“[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith”); Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith”).
ii. Indeed, Complainant’s marks are so well-known that Respondent would be hard-pressed to provide any legitimate explanation for registering the disputed domain name other than to take advantage of the goodwill and brand recognition associated with Complainant and its famous MORGAN STANLEY marks. See Singapore Airlines Limited v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant’s well-known trademark, very use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton International IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Management, L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) (“The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith”).
iii. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that attempts to engage in phishing or place malware on the Internet user’s computer device. This is strong evidence of bad faith use and registration. See Google, Inc. v. Petrovich, FA 1339345 (Forum Sept. 23, 2010) (finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users’ computers demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv)); 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).
iv. By causing initial interest confusion, Respondent’s use and registration of the disputed domain name disrupts the business of Complainant, 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).
v. Finally, because Complainant’s marks are well known and registered in many countries throughout the world, Respondent is presumed to have had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s marks at the time he registered the confusingly similar domain names. This knowledge indicates Respondent’s bad faith use and registration. See Carnival Plc v Belize Domain WHOIS Service Lt, FA 997973 (Forum July 17, 2007) (constructive knowledge of mark due to federal registration is evidence of bad faith).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(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.
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 Complainant prove the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(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 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 (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.”).
Complainant Morgan Stanley is in the global financial services business, providing investment banking, securities, wealth management and investment management services. Complainant uses the MORGAN STANLEY trademark in connection with its business. Complainant has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark because of its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,707,196, registered Aug. 11, 1992). Registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority for that matter) suffices to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i), even if Respondent is located in another country. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1627542 (Forum Aug. 9, 2015) (finding that Complainant has rights in the METROPCS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office). Complainant’s evidence of a USPTO registration for the MORGAN STANLEY mark is sufficient to establish rights under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant claims Respondent’s <morganstanleyvalencia.com> is confusingly similar to the MORGAN STANLEY mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i). The disputed domain incorporates the mark in its entirety—less the space—merely inserting the geographic term “valencia” and finally a “.com” gTLD. Addition of a geographic term to a mark to form a domain name is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis for confusing similarity. See Doosan Corporation v. philippe champain, FA 1636675 (Forum Oct. 13, 2015) (finding that geographic designations or terms descriptive of a complainant’s business operations do not remove a domain name from the realm of confusing similarity). Omission of a space in a mark is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits spaces. Likewise, a TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Respondent’s <morganstanleyvalencia.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(i) satisfied.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(ii). Then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it has rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant claims Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <morganstanleyvalencia.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not licensed or permitted to use the MORGAN STANLEY mark in any respect. Where there is no response, the WHOIS information and common sense allow the Panel to decide Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Domain Administrator/China Capital Investment Limited.” Respondent has failed to introduce any evidence Complainant authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s mark. See IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name). Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant claims Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of good or services, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. <morganstanleyvalencia.com> resolves to a site that attempts to engage in phishing or place malware in the Internet user’s computer or device. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”) Using the disputed domain name for a phishing/malware scheme does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶4(c)(i) and (iii).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) satisfied.
Complainant claims Respondent has registered and used the domain name <morganstanleyvalencia.com> in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain to engage in a phishing and malware scheme, which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) as well as Policy ¶4(a)(iii). Panels have defined “phishing” as “a practice that is intended to defraud consumers into revealing personal and proprietary information”. Capital One Fin. Corp. v. Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004). Phishing schemes generally constitute bad faith registration and use. See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1506001622862 (Forum August 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing’ scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶4(a)(iii)). Engaging in a subterfuge to insert malware onto visiting computers constitutes bad faith registration and use. See Google, Inc. v. Petrovich, FA 1339345 (Forum Sept. 23, 2010) (finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users’ computers demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv)). Screenshots of the disputed domain display a fake error message which encourages users to disclose personal information to a fake Microsoft technician. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain to engage in a phishing or malware scheme, all evidence of bad faith pursuant to language of Policy ¶4(b)(iv) and Policy ¶4(a)(iii) respectively.
Complainant claims Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of the MORGAN STANLEY mark and Complainant’s rights in the mark. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name shows Respondent has actual knowledge and awareness of Complainant’s rights. This means Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Nat'l Patent Servs. Inc. v. Bean, FA 1071869 (Forum Nov. 1, 2007) ("[C]onstructive notice does not support a finding of bad faith registration."); see also 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 "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"). Respondent did have prior actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered the <morganstanleyvalencia.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, Panelist
Dated: Monday, May 8, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page