E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC v. Alex Givne
Claim Number: FA2205001994893
Complainant is E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Alex Givne (“Respondent”), Ukraine.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <etradns.co>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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 the Forum electronically on May 3, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 3, 2022.
On May 4, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <etradns.co> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 6, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 26, 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@etradns.co. Also on May 6, 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 June 3, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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
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 has rights in the E*TRADE mark through its registration in the United States in 1996.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its E*TRADE mark as it incorporates the dominant portion of the mark, merely omitting the “*” symbol and the letter “e” at the end of the mark, adding the letters “ns”, and the “.co” country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”). 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 name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its E*TRADE mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead attempts to pass off as Complainant and phish for user information, while taking advantage of Complainant’s goodwill. Specifically, the resolving website features Complainant’s mark and logo, purports to offer its services, contains hyperlinks to Complainant’s actual website, and seeks personal information from users. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is impersonating Complainant and creating a false sense of affiliation to phish for personal information. Further, Respondent is creating initial interest confusion, disrupting Complainant’s business. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with 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 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website features Complainant’s mark and logo, purports to offer its services, contains hyperlinks to Complainant’s actual website, and seeks personal information from users.
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 consists of a misspelling of Complainant’s E*TRADE mark (the final letter “e” is omitted), with the omission of the “*” symbol (which cannot be used in domain names), and the addition of the letters “ns” and the “.co” country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”). The Panel finds that, for the purposes of the Policy, “etrad” is similar Complainant’s E*TRADE mark, in particular because the Panel may consider the resolving website when evaluating this element of the Policy. The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”) states under 1.7: “… 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 resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and trades off Complainant’s goodwill. This is sufficient to find confusing similarity under the Policy in this particular case. See Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Sergei Hromichkov, FA 1895177 (Forum June 3, 2020) (citing the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 to support finding confusing similarity when the disputed domain name was being used to impersonate Complainant); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX mark and adds “the letters ‘btc’ and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.”); see also Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"); see also Thomson Reuters Global Resources v. Matthew Krawitz, FA 1548336 (Forum Apr. 21, 2014) (“Respondent adds the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” to Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name, which also fails to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark… Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <rueters.co> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s REUTERS mark.”). Thus the Panel finds that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its E*TRADE mark in any way. Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby’s v. Tony Yeh shiun, FA 1810835 (Forum Nov. 13, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the <sothebys.email> domain name where the WHOIS identified Respondent as “Tony Yeh shiun,” Complainant never authorized or permitted Respondent to use the SOTHEBY’S mark, and Respondent failed to submit a response.). Here, the WHOIS record identifies the registrant as “Alex Givne”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and take advantage of its goodwill while phishing for user information. Specifically, Complainant provides evidence showing that the resolving website features Complainant’s mark and logo, purports to offer its services, contains hyperlinks to Complainant’s actual website, and seeks to obtain personal information from users. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to impersonate or pass off as Complainant and take advantage of its goodwill while phishing for user information does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (“In effect, Respondent attempted to pass itself off as Complainant online. Such blatant unauthorized use of Complainant’s mark is evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”); see also Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Hotel Partners a/k/a eGO Inc., FA 190506 (Forum Oct. 6, 2003) (“Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant at the disputed domain name, without authorization or license by Complainant . . . is evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”); see also Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Therefore 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 under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (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, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and take advantage of its goodwill while phishing for user information. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Carey Int’l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) (“[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith”); see also Fossil, Inc. v. www.fossil-watch.org c/o Host Master, FA 335513 (Forum Nov. 9, 2004) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under the Policy.
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving websites display Complainant’s mark and logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under 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 <etradns.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: June 3, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page