DECISION

 

Morgan Stanley v. Ocean Todd / Mr

Claim Number: FA2004001894177

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, United States.  Respondent is Ocean Todd / Mr (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

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

 

PANEL

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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 29, 2020; the Forum received payment on April 29, 2020.

 

On April 30, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <morganstanley-im.com> and <morganstanley-wm.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 May 1, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 21, 2020 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-im.com, postmaster@morganstanley-wm.com.  Also on May 1, 2020, 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 24, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.    Respondent’s <morganstanley-im.com> and <morganstanley-wm.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark.

 

2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <morganstanley-im.com> and <morganstanley-wm.com> domain names.

 

3.    Respondent registered and uses <morganstanley-im.com> and <morganstanley-wm.com> domain names in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent failed to file a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Morgan Stanley, offers financial, investment, and wealth management services and holds a registration for the MORGAN STANLEY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,707,196, registered Aug. 11, 1992).

 

Respondent registered the <morganstanley-im.com> and <morganstanley-wm.com> domain names were on April 23, 2020, and does not actively use them.

 

DISCUSSION

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”).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon registration with the USPTO.  See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent’s <morganstanley-im.com> and <morganstanley-wm.com> domain names use Complainant’s entire MORGAN STANLEY mark and merely add the descriptive abbreviations “-im,” an abbreviation for “investment management,” and “wm,” an abbreviation for “wealth management” and a gTLD.  Additions of descriptive terms and a gTLD to a complainant’s mark do not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).  Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <morganstanley-im.com> and <morganstanley-wm.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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 <morganstanley-im.com> and <morganstanley-wm.com> domain names as Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.  The WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Ocean Todd / Mr.” The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).  See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the <morganstanley-im.com> and <morganstanley-wm.com> domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain names.  Failure to make active use of a domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy  ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).  See Michelin North America, Inc. v. Energie Media Group, FA 451882 (Forum Aug. 7, 2012). In Michelin North, the panel found that inactive use, or “passive holding,” of the disputed domain name by a respondent “permits the inference that [the respondent] lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names.”  Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain names which resolve to inactive webpages showing “website coming soon” or “this site cannot be reached.”  The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering or good or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant claims that Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant by registering domain names that incorporate Complainant’s entire MORGAN STANLEY mark, and giving the impression that interested individuals will receive information regarding Complainant, but instead are sent to blank web pages.  The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names and the complainant’s AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

 

Complainant also asserts that Respondent fails to make an active use and is passively holding the <morganstanley-im.com> and <morganstanley-wm.com> domain names.  Failure to make an active use of a domain name is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Marsh Supermarkets Company, LLC, formerly known as Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. v. Choi Sungyeon, FA1312001532854 (Forum February 25, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <marshsupermarkets.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name.”)  Accordingly, Panel finds that Respondent’s inactive use of the disputed domain names indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Complainant asserts that, due the established reputation of the MORGAN STANLEY marks in the financial industry throughout the world, there can be no doubt that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark, which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA1411001591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) (“This Panel makes that inference; Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and Respondent’s use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to an in competition with Complainant.).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <morganstanley-im.com> and <morganstanley-wm.com>, domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated:  May 26, 2020

 

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page