DECISION

 

Morgan Stanley v. tony ferris / Shantanu Rangnekar

Claim Number: FA2309002061514

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Morgan Stanley ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is tony ferris / Shantanu Rangnekar ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <morganstanley-canada.com> and <morganstanleyca.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

For the reasons given below, the Panel finds that the only relevant domain name for this case is<morganstanleyca.com>.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 12, 2023; Forum received payment on September 12, 2023.

 

On September 13, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <morganstanley-canada.com> and <morganstanleyca.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 September 18, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 10, 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@morganstanley-canada.com and postmaster@morganstanleyca.com. Also on September 18, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent and Complainant did however make a joint submission to Forum, see below.

 

On October 11, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names 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. In support of this allegation it states: the domain names are nearly identical (both contain Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark in full and the term "Canada" or "CA," which is an abbreviation for Canada); both domains are registered with the same registrar (GoDaddy) and hosted by the same ISP (Google); the domain names were registered within a few weeks of one another; both of the domain names resolved to similar parking pages.

 

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 Complainant's allegations do not necessarily indicate that the domain names are under common control: the registrar and hosting service are well known and used by large numbers of registrants; the domain names were not registered on the same day; the resolving pages are parked pages from the hosting service, so their content is not necessarily specifically composed by the registrants.

 

Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has not presented sufficient evidence to find that both disputed domain names were registered by the same person or entity.

 

Under Forum's Supplemental Rule 4(c), the Panel must determine which domain names are commonly owned and elect which Respondent to proceed against, as a UDRP decision can proceed against only one Respondent. The Panel is then required to dismiss the Complaint in relation to the domain names not commonly owned by the chosen Respondent. 

 

In light of the joint communication from Complainant and one of the named Respondents (see below), the Panel will rule only on the <morganstanleyca.com> domain name, and it will dismiss, without prejudice, the complaint regarding the <morganstanley-canada.com> domain name. See Brian Renner v. Contactprivacy.com, FA 1335211 (Forum Aug. 26, 2010); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. M M / shanwang chen / feifei lin / HUA ZHANG / L H / Eddie Nash / Heather Brooker, FA 1973471 (Forum Dec. 17, 2021).

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

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 80,000 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 has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark through its registration in the United States in 1992. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is well known.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its MORGAN STANLEY mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the geographic term "ca" (which stands for Canada) together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its MORGAN STANLEY mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offerings of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair uses, but instead hosts parked, pay-per-click links to products and services that compete with those of Complainant on the disputed domain name's resolving website. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent hosts competing parked, pay-per-click links on the disputed domain name's resolving website. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. In their joint communication to Forum, Respondent and Complainant state, in pertinent part:

Respondent Shantanu Rangnekar ("Respondent Rangnekar") represents that he owns the following domain name that is subject to the current UDRP: <morganstanley-canada.com>. Respondent Rangnekar further represents that he does not own the other domain name subject to this UDRP: <morganstanleyca.com>.

 

Respondent Rangnekar disputes Complainant's UDRP claims, but is willing to transfer his domain name <morganstanley-canada.com> to Complainant. Complainant and Respondent Rangnekar therefore jointly request that the Panel issue a Decision only with respect to <morganstanleyca.com> and not issue a Decision with respect to Respondent Rangnekar's domain <morganstanley-canada.com>, without prejudice to Complainant's right to refile a complaint in the future.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the mark MORGAN STANLEY dating back to at least 1992 and uses it to provide banking and financial services around the world.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2023.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that contains pay-per-click advertising links to products and services that compete with those of Complainant.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark in its entirety, merely adding the geographic term "ca" (which stands for Canada) together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or geographic terms and/or relevant or meaningless letters is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See 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 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 are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent 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 Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "tony ferris". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving website displays advertising hyperlinks for products and services that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. SeeTrulia, Inc. v. Armen A, FA1586491 (Forum Dec. 2, 2014) (finding that a parked page containing pay-per-click advertising links that resolve to the websites of Complainant's competitors did "not constitute a Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) bona fide offering of goods or services, or a Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) legitimate noncommercial fair use"); 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 Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA 1629217 (Forum Aug. 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). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii)). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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 displays advertising links to products and services that compete with those of Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing goods or services can be evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Guidehouse LLP v. Zhi Chao Yang, FA 2013476 (Forum Oct. 31, 2022) ("[T]he resolving website displays advertising links to competing services. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) ("Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another."); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent's use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant's competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Capital One Financial Corp. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1598657 (Forum Feb. 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)."). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).

 

DECISION

The Panel dismisses, without prejudice, the Complaint against the <morganstanley-canada.com> domain name.

 

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy for the <morganstanleyca.com> domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED for that domain name.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <morganstanleyca.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant and that the <morganstanley-canada.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: October 11, 2023