Morgan Stanley v. Pamela ICT Enterprises / Wenzel Pamela
Claim Number: FA2107001956671
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Pamela ICT Enterprises / Wenzel Pamela (“Respondent”), Virginia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ukmorganstanley.online>, registered with Upperlink Limited.
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.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 26, 2021; the Forum received payment on July 26, 2021.
On July 28, 2021, Upperlink Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ukmorganstanley.online> domain name is registered with Upperlink Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Upperlink Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Upperlink Limited 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 July 29, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 18, 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@ukmorganstanley.online. Also on July 29, 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 August 20, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
(i) Complainant offers a full range of financial, investment, and wealth management services. Complainant has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,707,196, registered August 11, 1992). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as Respondent merely adds the geographic term “uk” and the “.online” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, Respondent’s use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent is merely passively holding the disputed domain name.
(iii) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as Respondent inactively holding the disputed domain name. Additionally, the disputed domain name is likely to cause confusion among Internet users, and there is no conceivable way for Respondent to use the disputed domain without further infringement on Complainant’s mark. Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not a response in this proceeding.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on July 24, 2021.
2. Complainant has established rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,707,196, registered August 11, 1992).
3. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage.
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”).
Complainant claims rights in its MORGAN STANLEY mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,707,196, registered August 11, 1992). Registration with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as Respondent merely adds the geographic term “uk” and the “.online” gTLD. Adding a geographic term and a gTLD to a complainant’s mark may not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding that the addition of geographic terms, such as “cancun” to the end of the CHEAPTICKETS mark in the <cheapticketscancun.com>, <cheapticketscancun.biz>, <cheapticketscancun.net>, and <cheapticketscancun.org> domain names, does not overcome a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that 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 does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been licensed or authorized by Complainant to use Complainant’s mark. Where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The Panel notes the WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Pamela ICT Enterprises / Wenzel Pamela” and no information in the record indicates that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Next, Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent inactively holds the disputed domain name. Inactively holding a disputed domain name may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v. Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) (“Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage which appears to be a parked webpage. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith as Respondent is inactively holding the disputed domain name. Further, the disputed domain name has no conceivable use that would not infringe on Complainant’s mark. Bad faith can be found when a disputed domain name infringes on a famous mark and is then left inactive under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Alitalia –Line Aerie Italian S.p.A v. Color Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that the respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose). As noted above, Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage of the disputed domain name which appears to display a parked webpage. Complainant also provides evidence of the fame of its MORGAN STANLEY mark through various financial data and business reports.
The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration of it, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent’s behavior, and a remedy can be obtained under the Policy only if those circumstances show that the respondent’s passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith.)
The particular circumstances of this case that the Panel has considered are:
i) Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark is considered as being a well-known and reputable trademark, and
ii) Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name.
Taking into account all of the above, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii) and that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Complainant also argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark. Although panels have generally not regarded constructive notice to be sufficient for a finding of bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering a disputed domain name is adequate to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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.”). Complainant argues that its MORGAN STANLEY marks are well known and registered around the world. Complainant provides evidence for the notoriety of Complainant’s mark such as financial data and business reports. The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant’s mark that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its MORGAN STANLEY mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name, which constitutes bad faith registration 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 <ukmorganstanley.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: August 23, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page