Morgan Stanley v. dakali / da ka
Claim Number: FA2201001980270
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is dakali / da ka (“Respondent”), Australia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <morganstanley.one>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 13, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 13, 2022.
On January 13, 2022, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <morganstanley.one> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 January 17, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 7, 2022 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.one. Also on January 17, 2022, 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 February 9, 2022, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <morganstanley.one> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <morganstanley.one> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <morganstanley.one> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant offers financial 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.one> domain name on January 11, 2022, and uses it to compete with Complainant.
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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark through its registration with the USPTO. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant’s registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <morganstanley.one> domain name uses Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark and simply adds a gTLD. These changes do not distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See loanDepot.com, LLC v. sm goo, FA 1786848 (Forum June 12, 2018) (“we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <mellosolar.com> domain name is substantively identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s MELLO SOLAR mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <morganstanley.one> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name 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 lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <morganstanley.one> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent has no license or consent to use the MORGAN STANLEY mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “dakali da ka.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has. No rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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); see also 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)”).
Complainant also argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent offers services that compete with Complainant’s business. Using a disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers services that compete with a complainant’s business is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“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).”) Complainant provides a screenshot of the website at <morganstanley.one> showing that Respondent offers services related to Complainant’s business. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods 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).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <morganstanley.one> domain name in bad faith by offering services that compete with Complainant’s business. Using a disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers services that compete with a complainant’s business evinces bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant’s business). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant also argues that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark at the time of registering the <morganstanley.one> domain name. The Panel agrees, noting the fame of the MORGAN STANLEY mark, and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <morganstanley.one> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: February 10, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page