Morgan Stanley v. Mandell Crawley / Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
Claim Number: FA2104001941469
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Mandell Crawley / Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <morganstanleycareerhr.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Tucows Domains Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 14, 2021; the Forum received payment on April 14, 2021.
On April 14, 2021, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <morganstanleycareerhr.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. 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 16, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 6, 2021 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@morganstanleycareerhr.com. Also on April 16, 2021, 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 12, 2021 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant is the owner of the MORGAN STANLEY mark, registered, inter alia, in the United States for financial services with first use recorded as 1935. It is well known.
The Domain Name registered in 2021 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark incorporating the Complainant’s mark in its entirety with the addition of the generic terms ‘career’ and ‘hr’ short for human resources and the gTLD “.com” which do not prevent the said confusing similarity.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The Domain Name does not resolve to an active web site but Respondent has sent emails to potential job seekers using the MORGAN STANLEY name and mark. Such fraudulent use of a domain name to impersonate and create a false connection with Complainant, defraud consumers and phish for personal information is not a legitimate use of the domain name or a bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name shows actual knowledge of the well-known Complainant, its rights and business, and is registration and use in bad faith in opportunistic bad faith for fraudulent purposes disrupting the Complainant’s business and confusing Internet users for commercial gain. Further the Respondent falsely lists itself as the Complainant in the WhoIs search. Giving false contact details for the Who Is search is bad faith per se.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the MORGAN STANLEY mark, registered, inter alia, in the United States for financial services with first use recorded as 1935. It is well known.
The Domain Name registered in 2021 has been used for an e mail phishing scam.
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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark (which is registered, inter alia in USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1935), the generic word ‘career’, an acronym for human resources ‘hr’ and the gTLD “.com”.
The addition of the generic term ‘hr’ meaning human resources and/or the dictionary word ‘career’ to the Complainant’s trade mark in the Domain Name does not prevent confusion similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark. See Abbott Laboratories v. Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec. 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of generic terms does not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant’s mark under Policy 4(a)(i).).
The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent as an individual is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. Although the Respondent lists Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC as part of its Who Is details the Complainant confirms there is no connection between the Complainant and the Respondent.
The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent e mail scheme. This is deceptive and confusing and amounts to passing off. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a noncommercial legitimate or fair use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the Panel the use made of the Domain Name in relation to a fraudulent e mail scam is confusing and deceptive in that recipients of the e mails will reasonably believe those e mails are connected to or approved by the Complainant as communications sent by these e mails used the Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark. This mimicking by the Respondent of the Complainant shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business and rights and constitutes passing off. Impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant’s mark in a fraudulent e mail scam is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4 2016) (finding that respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii).).
Further the Respondent has provided false WhoIs information which is bad faith per se. See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraph 4(b)(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 <morganstanleycareerhr.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page