Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Daniel Alexander / Pay Tradings
Claim Number: FA2305002043531
Complainant is Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Daniel Alexander / Pay Tradings (“Respondent”), Germany.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <etradershub.net>, registered with TLD Registrar Solutions 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 Forum electronically on May 8, 2023; Forum received payment on May 8, 2023.
On May 11, 2023, TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <etradershub.net> domain name is registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the TLD Registrar Solutions 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 May 11, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 31, 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@etradershub.net. Also on May 11, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 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.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it operates in the financial services industry. Complainant originated as a platform that allowed retail investors to trade stocks online. Today, Complainant provides a suite of digital financial services for investors, traders, financial advisors, stock plan participants, and stock plan administrators. Complainant employs more than 4,100 individuals and has 30 retail branches across the United States. In October 2020, Morgan Stanley announced that it had completed its acquisition of Complainant. With the acquisition, Morgan Stanley’s Wealth Management division oversees approximately $3.3 trillion in assets. Complainant asserts rights to the E*TRADE mark based upon its registration in the United States in 1996.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its E*TRADE mark as it contains the mark in its entirety (minus the asterisk), merely adding the generic/descriptive term “hub”, the letters “rs”, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net”. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
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 E*TRADE 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 a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant by purporting to offer competing financial services. However, the financial services offered via Respondent’s website are fake: Respondent’s website claims that “E TRADERS HUB is a UK Based FINANCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY. THE Company is registered and licensed in the UK with Company number 12779802.”; However, a search of the online UK Companies House database for company number 12779802 indicates that the company is dissolved and has a name (“ETRADERS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED”) that is different than the company name listed on respondent’s website (“E TRADERS HUB”); in addition, Respondent’s site states that its CEO is “Alex Fernfeld,” but the Companies House listing lists only one officer/director: Jamilu Abdullahi of Nigeria; further, Respondent’s website displays a photo that purportedly depicts its CEO Alex Fernfeld; however, an online search of the photo shows that it has appeared on other websites and was ostensibly associated with a cryptocurrency scam site that also listed its CEO’s name as “Alex Fernfeld”. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant by purporting to offer competing financial services; however, the financial services offered via Respondent’s website are fake. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to create initial interest confusion in internet users. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the E*TRADE mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark E*TRADE and uses it to provide financial services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 1996.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2023.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website purports to offer financial services that compete with those of Complainant; however, the financial services offered via Respondent’s website are fake.
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 E*TRADE mark in its entirety (minus the asterisk), merely adding the generic/descriptive term “hub”, the letters “rs” (which could be understood as a transformation or “etrade” into “etraders”), and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.net”. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), omitting punctuation, adding a gTLD and/or generic terms and/or relevant or meaningless letters is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word “advisors” and the gTLD “.com” did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters ‘sb’ and the digits ‘2018,’ plus the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s E*TRADE 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 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Daniel Alexander/PayTradings”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant presents evidence showing that the resolving website purports to offer financial services that compete with those of Complainant. However, the financial services offered via Respondent’s website are fake: Respondent’s website claims that “E TRADERS HUB is a UK Based FINANCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY. THE Company is registered and licensed in the UK with Company number 12779802.”; However, a search of the online UK Companies House database for company number 12779802 indicates that the company is dissolved and has a name (“ETRADERS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED”) that is different than the company name listed on respondent’s website (“E TRADERS HUB”); in addition, Respondent’s site states that its CEO is “Alex Fernfeld,” but the Companies House listing lists only one officer/director: Jamilu Abdullahi of Nigeria; further, Respondent’s website displays a photo that purportedly depicts its CEO Alex Fernfeld; however, an online search of the photo shows that it has appeared on other websites and was ostensibly associated with a cryptocurrency scam site that also listed its CEO’s name as “Alex Fernfeld”. The use of a domain to sell products or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business, or to offer fake products or services, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site); see also Acton Educational Services d/b/a West Coast Univ. v. West Coast Univ. Int’l Inc., FA 1191541 (Forum July 2, 2008) (website offering fake educational services was not a legitimate use of domain name). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And 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, the resolving website purports to offer financial services that compete with those of Complainant; however, the financial services offered via Respondent’s website are fake. The use of a disputed domain name to offer products or services similar to a complainant’s, or to offer fake services, evinces an intent to attract internet users for commercial gain per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”); see also Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Mike Manning, FA2112001976062 (Forum Jan. 4, 2022) (finding bad faith registration and use where the resolving website was offering fake financial services). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <etradershub.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: June 6, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page