Morgan Stanley v. 摩根士丹利信息技术(上海)有限公司
Claim Number: FA1412001595174
Complainant: Morgan Stanley of New York, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent: 摩根士丹利信息技术(上海)有限公司 of 北京, International, CN.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: 网址 Registry
Registrars: Internet Domain Name System Beijing Engineering Research Center LLC (ZDNS)
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 Examiner in this proceeding.
Jonathan Agmon, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: December 16, 2014
Commencement: December 18, 2014
Default Date: January 5, 2015
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant, Morgan Stanley, is a well-known American multinational financial services corporation founded on September 16, 1935. The corporation operates in 42 countries and has more than 1300 offices and 60,000 employees.
The trademark MORGAN STANELY is well-known throughout the world and enjoys a vast reputation in connection with financial and related services.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for MORGAN STANELY formative marks. For example, U.S. trademark registration no. 1,707,196 -- MORGAN STANELY, registered on August 11, 1992 WITH first date of use September 16, 1935, and 4,470,389. Complainant also owns registrations for MORGAN STANLEY trademark in China e.g. Nos. 3,069,699, 3,069,913, 775,116 and 607,509. This is further supported by the fact that MORGAN STANLEY mark is registered with the Trade Mark Clearinghouse.
Complainant asserts the following regarding the Respondent;
1. The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS 1.2.6.1]: for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use;
2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS 1.2.6.2] ;
3. The domain name was registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as: By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant's web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant's web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS
1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional
registration and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in
effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Complainant is the owner of a the valid trademark registration for MORGAN STANELY mark No. 1,707,196 -- MORGAN STANELY, registered on August 11, 1992 bearing first date of use September 16, 1935.
The domain name includes the Complainant's mark in its entirety. The additional elements in the domain name, i.e., the geographical descriptor "china", the elimination of spaces between MORGAN and STANLEY and the addition of the gTLD ".网址" with the meaning web address does not distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's mark.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the <morganstanleychina.网址> domain name is confusingly similar to the MORGAN STANLEY mark pursuant to URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
There is no evidence that Respondent is known as MORGAN STANLEY. Respondent does not engage in any legitimate business or commerce under and is not commonly known by the name MORGAN SRTANLEY. Complainant has no business or other connection with Respondent and has not authorized Respondent to register or use its name. Although the WhoIs database indicates that Respondent is called Morgan Stanley Information Technology (Shanghai), Respondent has falsely indicated itself as associated with Complainant and Complainant believes that Respondent has the intention to use the disputed name to impersonate Complainant. The domain name does not resolves to an active website. Complainant has met its burden. Respondent provided no response to the complaint.
[URS
1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
a. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted
to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or
other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s
mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s
web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location. In
view of Complainant's established reputation in the MORGAN STANELY mark in the
financial industry, Respondent was aware and deliberately chose to acquire the
disputed domain name so as to present itself as connected or otherwise
affiliated with the Complainant thus unlawfully enjoy from Complainant's
reputation. Respondent received express notice from Trademark Clearinghouse of
Complainant's prior rights and still chose to acquire the disputed website,
which is another proof that Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights in the
trademark and acted in bad faith. Respondent Also failed to respond to a
warning letter sent by Complainant's attorney on December 4, 2014.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Since Complainant's trademark was registered long before the disputed domain name was registered and the disputed name resolves to a non- active website, the conclusion is that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to attract for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3 (b).
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
Jonathan Agmon, Examiner
Dated: January 07, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page