Morgan Stanley v. robert smith / mspc
Claim Number: FA1911001870172
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is robert smith / mspc (“Respondent”), Great Britain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <morganstanley-pc.com>, registered with LCN.COM Ltd..
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 7, 2019; the Forum received payment on November 7, 2019.
On November 8, 2019, LCN.COM Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <morganstanley-pc.com> domain name is registered with LCN.COM Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. LCN.COM Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the LCN.COM Ltd. 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 November 11, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 2, 2019 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@morganstanley-pc.com. Also on November 11, 2019, 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 December 5, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it 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, and over 55,000 employees worldwide, Complainant offers truly global access to financial markets and advice. In 2018, Complainant had net revenues of over US$ 40,000,000,000. Complainant has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark based upon registration in the United States in 1992. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MORGAN STANLEY mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic or descriptive term “pc” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business by impersonating Complainant as part of an e-mail phishing scheme. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of the MORGAN STANLEY mark when it registered and subsequently used the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark MORGAN STANLEY and uses it to provide financial, investment, and wealth management services. The mark is famous.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 1992.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2019.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name is used for a fraudulent phishing scheme. A form attached to the fraudulent e-mails displays Complainant’s mark and other information associated 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."
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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirely and merely adds the generic term “pc” and a gTLD to the mark. Additions of a generic and/or descriptive terms and a gTLD to a complainant’s mark does not negate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <morganstanley-pc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies registrant as “robert smith / mspc.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Respondent attempts to impersonate Complainant as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Specifically, Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent uses an e-mail address associated with the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and sends phishing e-mails to Complainant’s customers regarding a bond application that displays Complainant’s mark and other information associated with Complainant, and that is designed to solicit personal information under false pretenses. Use of a domain name to pass off as a complainant in order to conduct a fraudulent scheme is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests in the name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant’s CEO by means of email addresses at the confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to determine Complainant’s ability to process a transfer. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). In addition, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to impersonate Complainant in order to conduct a fraudulent scheme for commercial gain. Use of a domain name to impersonate a complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme may constitute bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: Respondent used Complainant’s mark and other information associated with Complainant in its fraudulent phishing e-mails. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under 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 <morganstanley-pc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: December 5, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page