Morgan Stanley v. stanley, morgan
Claim Number: FA0909001284857
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Baila H. Celedonia, of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is stanley, morgan (“Respondent”), Virginia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <morganstanleycohort.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 16, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 18, 2009.
On September 17, 2009, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <morganstanleycohort.com> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On September 25, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 15, 2009 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@morganstanleycohort.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 21, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration 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 makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <morganstanleycohort.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <morganstanleycohort.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <morganstanleycohort.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Morgan Stanley, is a well-known financial and investment company with over 600 offices in twenty-eight countries around the world. Complainant offers a full range of financial and investment services to its clients. Complainant owns several registrations for the MORGAN STANLEY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,707,196 issued August 11, 1992).
Respondent registered the <morganstanleycohort.com> domain name on August 18, 2009. Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to Respondent’s commerical website claiming to associated with Complainant and offering financial services in direct competition 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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
Complainant owns several registrations for the MORGAN STANLEY mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,707,196 issued August 11, 1992). Complainant has established rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
Respondent’s <morganstanleycohort.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name contains
Complainant’s mark in its entirety, adds the generic term “cohort,” and adds
the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
The Panel finds that the addition of the generic term “cohort” fails to
create a distinguishing characteristic within the disputed domain name. See Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc. v. Rana, FA 304696
(Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 21, 2004) (finding that the addition of the generic term
“collection” to Complainant’s HARRY POTTER mark failed to distinguish the
domain name from the mark); see also
Google Inc. v. Xtraplus Corp., D2001-0125 (WIPO Apr. 16, 2001) (finding
that the respondent’s domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant’s
GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as “buy” or
“gear” to the end). In addition, the
Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a
disputed domain from a registered mark. See Jerry
Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of
a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish
the Domain Name from the mark.”); see
also Nev. State Bank v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 204063 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“It has been established that the addition of a generic
top-level domain is irrelevant when considering whether a domain name is
identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <morganstanleycohort.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <morganstanleycohort.com> domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Based on the arguments made in the Complaint, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case in support of its contentions. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also Towmaster, Inc. v. Hale, FA 973506 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 4, 2007) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is neither commonly
known by the disputed domain name, nor licensed to register domain names using
the MORGAN STANLEY mark. Respondent’s WHOIS information
identifies Respondent as “stanley, morgan.” Although Respondent appears to be
commonly known by the disputed domain name from the WHOIS information, the
Panel finds that without affirmative evidence of Respondent being commonly
known by the disputed domain name, Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb.
Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the
respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com>
domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS
contact information because there was “no
affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly
known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed
domain name”); see also City News & Video v.
Citynewsandvideo, FA 244789 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2004) (“Although
Respondent’s WHOIS information lists its name as ‘citynewsandvideo,’ there is
no evidence before the Panel to indicate that Respondent is, in fact, commonly
known by the disputed domain name <citynewsandvideo.com> pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
Respondent’s disputed domain name
was registered on August 18, 2009 and resolves to Respondent’s commercial
website claiming to be associated with Complainant and offering financial
services in direct competition with Complainant. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the
disputed domain name is neither a bona
fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See
Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 23, 2003) (“Respondent’s appropriation of [Complainant’s] SAFLOK mark to
market products that compete with Complainant’s goods does not constitute a
bona fide offering of goods and services.”); see also DLJ Long Term Inv. Corp. v.
BargainDomainNames.com, FA 104580 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2002) (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services because Respondent
is using the domain name to divert Internet users to <visual.com>, where
services that compete with Complainant are advertised.”).
Additionally, Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves
to a website that passes itself off as being associated with Complainant. The Panel finds that this is further evidence
that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in
the <morganstanleycohort.com> domain name. See
Dream Horse Classifieds v. Mosley, FA 381256 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 8,
2005) (finding the respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as the complainant
by implementing a color scheme identical to the complainant’s was evidence that
respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see
also Crow v. LOVEARTH.net, FA 203208 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 28, 2003) (“It is neither
a bona fide offerings [sic] of goods or services, nor an example of a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii) when
the holder of a domain name, confusingly similar to a registered mark, attempts
to profit by passing itself off as Complainant . . . .”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the <morganstanleycohort.com> domain name to operate a website that attempts to create the impression of being associated with Complainant and offer financial services in direct competition with Complainant constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Jerie v. Burian, FA 795430 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2006) (concluding that the respondent registered and used the <sportlivescore.com> domain name in order to disrupt the complainant’s business under the LIVESCORE mark because the respondent was maintaining a website in direct competition with the complainant); see also EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name in order to intentionally attract Internet users to its website by creating a strong possiblity of confusion with Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark. Respondent offers financial services in direct competition with Complainant, which is further evidence of bad faith. Therefore, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), the Panel finds this use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use. See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by using domain names that were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to redirect users to a website that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also State Fair of Tex. v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe on the complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet users to the respondent’s website).
Further, Respondent is using the <morganstanleycohort.com> domain name to pass itself off as being associated with Complainant by displaying Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark and resembling Complainant’s website. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith use and registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Monsanto Co. v. Decepticons, FA 101536 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2001) (finding that the respondent's use of <monsantos.com> to misrepresent itself as the complainant and to provide misleading information to the public supported a finding of bad faith); see also DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Bargman, D2000-0222 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s use of the title “Dodgeviper.com Official Home Page” gave consumers the impression that the complainant endorsed and sponsored the respondent’s website).
The Panel finds that ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <morganstanleycohort.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: November 2, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum