Morgan Stanley v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.
Claim Number: FA1804001783121
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp. (“Respondent”), Bahamas.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <morganstanle.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 23, 2018; the Forum received payment on April 23, 2018.
On April 25, 2018, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <morganstanle.com> domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Service BS Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS Corp 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 April 25, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 15, 2018 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@morganstanle.com. Also on April 25, 2018, 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 May 18, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 registered the MORGAN STANLEY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,707,196, registered Aug. 11, 1992). Respondent’s <morganstanle.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the mark but for the omission of the letter “y” and spacing within the mark before appending the “.com” generic top-level-domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <morganstanle.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale and the resolving website attempts to install malware on visitor’s computers or phish for information.
Respondent registered and uses the <morganstanle.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale. Respondent distributes malware or attempts to phish from the disputed domain name. Respondent engaged in typosquatting. Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark at the time of registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant and its predecessors-in-interest have used marks containing or comprising MORGAN STANLEY in connection with various financial services and goods and services since as early as 1935, and the marks remain in use today worldwide. As a result of extensive use, promotion and advertisement, the MORGAN STANLEY marks are well-known to consumers. Complainant has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY marks through registration with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,707,196, registered Aug. 11, 1992). Respondent’s <morganstanle.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark.
Respondent registered the <morganstanle.com> domain name on March 16, 2006.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <morganstanle.com> domain name. Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale and the resolving website attempts to install malware on visitor’s computers or to phish for information.
Respondent registered and uses the <morganstanle.com> domain name 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 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 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 has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY marks through registration with the USPTO. Respondent’s <morganstanle.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark as it wholly incorporates the mark, but for the omission of the letter “y” and spacing within the mark, and appends the “.com” gTLD.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <morganstanle.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its MORGAN STANLEY marks. The WHOIS identifies “Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.” as the registrant. See Amazon Technologies, Inc., FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same).; see also Navistar International Corporation, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or otherwise fair use. Rather, Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website which attempts to engage in phishing or placing malware on unsuspecting visitor’s computers. See Morgan Stanley, FA 1600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that the respondent’s apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Snap Inc. FA 1735300 (Forum July 14, 2017) (“Use of a disputed domain name to offer malicious software does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”).
Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale. Offering a confusingly similar domain name for sale to the public is evidence of a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc., FA 1614086 (Forum May 25, 2015) (“Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s general attempt to sell the disputed domain name is further evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
Offering a confusingly similar domain name for sale can evince bad faith registration. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC, FA 1625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“A respondent’s general offer to sell a disputed domain name for an excess of out-of-pocket costs is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
Use of a confusingly similar domain name to phish for personal or financial information or to distribute malware shows bad faith registration and use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) by engaging in typosquatting. See Adorama, Inc., FA 1610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (“Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark when registering the <morganstanle.com> domain name. Therefore, Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <morganstanle.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 1, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page