Morgan Stanley v. Jess Koong
Claim Number: FA1807001798603
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Jess Koong (“Respondent”), Malaysia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <morganstanley.website>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 July 26, 2018; the Forum received payment on July 26, 2018.
On July 27, 2018, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <morganstanley.website> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 July 27, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 16, 2018 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.website. Also on July 27, 2018, 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 August 20, 2018, 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.website> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <morganstanley.website> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <morganstanley.website> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant 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), and uses it in connection with offering financial services.
Respondent registered the <morganstanley.website> domain name on June 28, 2018, and it does not resolve to an active website.
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 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 (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.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark. . .”) . Due to Complainant’s attached USPTO registration on the principal register at Exhibit 1, the Panel agrees that it has sufficiently demonstrated its rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <morganstanley.website> domain name uses Complainant’s mark and simply eliminates the space and adds the “.website” gTLD. Similar changes to a registered mark have failed to sufficiently distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Research Now Group, Inc. v. Pan Jing, FA 1735345 (Forum July 14, 2017) (“Complainant also asserts that Respondent’s <researchnow.host>, <researchnow.top> and <researchnow.club> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because each merely eliminates the space and appends a gTLD to the fully incorporated mark. The addition of a gTLD and elimination of spacing are both considered irrelevant when distinguishing between a mark and a domain name.”). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s <morganstanley.website> domain name is identical 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 contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <morganstanley.website> domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent has never been legitimately affiliated with Complainant, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has no permission to use the MORGAN STANELY mark. The WHOIS identifies “Jess Koong” as the registrant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <morganstanley.website> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered 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 provides a screenshot of the webpage associated with the domain name, which displays the error message “This site can’t be reached.” The Panel thus finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name and thus fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <morganstanley.website> domain name in bad faith to take advantage of the goodwill and brand recognition associated with Complainant and its famous MORGAN STANLEY mark. Using a disputed domain name that trades upon the goodwill of a complainant, even when the resolving webpage is inactive, can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Phat Fashions, LLC v. Kruger, FA 96193 (Forum Dec. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) even though the respondent has not used the domain name because “it makes no sense whatever to wait until it actually ‘uses’ the name, when inevitably, when there is such use, it will create the confusion described in the Policy”). Accordingly, the Panel agrees that Respondent attempts to trade off the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant also contends that Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the mark prior to registering the domain name due to Complainant’s long and well-established reputation in the MORGAN STANLEY mark, used throughout the world. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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 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.website> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: August 21, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page