Morgan Stanley v. XIAOBAI ZHOU / SHEN YU HE
Claim Number: FA2301002026387
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York. Respondent is XIAOBAI ZHOU / SHEN YU HE (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <3organstanley.com>, <morgan3tanley.com>, <morganstanl3y.com>, and <morganstanley3.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.; Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).
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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 5, 2023; Forum received payment on January 5, 2023. The Complaint was received in both Chinese and English.
On January 5, 2023; January 6, 2023, NameCheap, Inc.; Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <3organstanley.com>, <morgan3tanley.com>, <morganstanl3y.com>, and <morganstanley3.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc.; Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc.; Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc.; Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) 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 January 10, 2023, Forum served the Chinese language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 30, 2023 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@3organstanley.com, postmaster@morgan3tanley.com, postmaster@morganstanl3y.com, postmaster@morganstanley3.com. Also on January 10, 2023, the Chinese language 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 6, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
The Panel finds that the domain names are under common control as the they were all registered on the same day and the WHOIS shows the same email address and telephone number for all of the domain names This is sufficient to find that the domain names were registered by the same domain name holder. See The Valspar Corporation v. Zhou Zhiliang / zhouzhiliang / Zhiliang Zhou / Eric Chow / Visspa Ltd., FA100800133934 (Forum Sept. 28, 2010); see also BBY Solutions, Inc. v. White Apple / Dev Kumar, FA1805001787251 (Forum June 20, 2018).
Consequently, the Panel will rule on all four contested domain names, and the registrants are collectively referred to as “Respondent”.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Prior to discussing the three elements of the Policy, the Panel must decide on the language of the proceedings, because the Registration Agreement for two of the disputed domain names is written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings Chinese for those two domain names.
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel has the authority to determine a different language for the proceedings, having regard to the circumstances of the case. It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Pursuant to Rule 10(b), Respondent must be given a fair opportunity to present its case. Pursuant to Rule 10(c), the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, “It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.”).
In the present case, Respondent has received the Complaint and Commencement Notification in Chinese and has chosen not to respond to the Complaint. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Panel determines that fairness and justice to both parties, and due expedition, are best satisfied by conducting the remainder of the proceedings in English. See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Yoshihiro Nakazawa, FA 1736477 (Forum July 21, 2017); see also UBS AG v. ratzel laura, FA 1735687 (Forum July 14, 2017).
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 2020, Complainant had net revenues of over US$ 48,000,000,000. Complainant claims rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark through its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including in the United States in 1992. The mark is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its MORGAN STANLEY trademark because three of them consist of a misspelling of the mark (a letter is replaced by the number “3), one incorporates the mark in its entirely, merely added the number “3”, and all add the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com”. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, one of the resolving websites displays advertising links to competing services, one displays advertising links to unrelated businesses whose company name includes the name “Stanley”; two of the disputed domain names are not being used. Respondent engages in typosquatting. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant by offering competing or unrelated products or services and receiving commercial gain through click-through fees. Respondent’s inactive holding evidences bad faith. Respondent had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark. Respondent engages in typosquatting. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the mark MORGAN STANLEY dating back to 1992 and uses it to provide banking and financial services around the world. The mark is famous.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
One of the resolving websites displays advertising links to competing services, one displays advertising links to unrelated businesses whose company name includes the name “Stanley”; two of the disputed domain names are not being used.
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”).
Three of the disputed domain names consist of a misspelling of Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark (a letter is replaced by the number “3), one incorporates the mark in its entirely, merely added the number “3”, and all add the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) “.com”. Misspelling a mark, omitting the space in a mark, and/or adding a number and gTLD do not distinguish defeat a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“The [<morganstonley.com> and <morganstainley.com>] Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, as they fully incorporate the MORGAN STANLEY mark, varying it only by subtle misspellings, omitting a space between the words, and adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’”); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. network admin, FA 1622138 (Forum July 11, 2015) (“The addition, deletion, and switching of . . . numbers in domain names do not remove Respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to Complainant’s BLOOMBERG mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Further, the domain name <3organstanley.com> resolves to a website that displays advertising links to businesses whose company name includes the name “Stanley”.
According to 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”): “In specific limited instances, while not a replacement as such for the typical side-by-side comparison, where a panel would benefit from affirmation as to confusing similarity with the complainant’s mark, the broader case context such as website content trading off the complainant’s reputation, … may support a finding of confusing similarity.”
Here, the <3organstanley.com> website contains advertising that trades off Complainant’s name and reputation. This supports the side-by-side comparison above.
For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed 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).Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as “XIAOBAI ZHOU / SHEN YU HE.” Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
One of the resolving websites displays advertising links to competing services, one displays advertising links to unrelated businesses; two of the disputed domain names are not being used. This is evidence that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See also Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA1507001629217 (Forum August 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant); see also Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant); see also Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“both Domain Names resolve to a web site that shows the words, ‘Not Found, The requested URL / was not found on this server.’ Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
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 names.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses two of the disputed domain names to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract users for commercial gain through the use of third-party links. Panels have found such a use of a domain name to constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and/or (iii). See Capital One Financial Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1501001598657 (Forum February 20, 2015) (“This Panel agrees that Respondent’s use as shown in Exhibits C-D illustrates that Respondent here seeks commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion, as competing hyperlinks have been found to establish evidence of intent to seek commercial gain through referral fees, and thus demonstrates bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Bad faith has been found even where a respondent has commercially benefited through links unrelated to a complainant’s mark. See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites); see also PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant’s business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained). Thus, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Also as already noted, two of the disputed domain names are not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”
In the present case, Complainant’s trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) (“Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy”); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. 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, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int’l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., 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”).
There has been no response to the Complaint. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain names are not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <3organstanley.com>, <morgan3tanley.com>, <morganstanl3y.com>, and <morganstanley3.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: February 6, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page