Morgan Stanley v. Steve Zlobin
Claim Number: FA2205001997883
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York. Respondent is Steve Zlobin (“Respondent”), US.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <morganstanleycorporate.com>, registered with Google LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 25, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 25, 2022.
On May 26, 2022, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <morganstanleycorporate.com> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 May 27, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 16, 2022, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail message addressed to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to the attention of postmaster@morganstanleycorporate.com. Also on May 27, 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 23, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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 a response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant engages in the business of providing financial, investment and wealth management services.
Complainant holds a registration for the MORGAN STANLEY trademark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as Registry No. 4,470,389, registered January 21, 2014.
Respondent registered the domain name <morganstanleycorporate.com> on May 19, 2022.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY trademark.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the MORGAN STANLEY mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the contested domain name.
Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Instead, the website resolving from the domain name is passively held (i.e.: inactive).
Respondent lacks both rights to and legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent’s use of the domain name disrupts Complainant’s business.
Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark when it registered the domain name.
Respondent both registered and now uses the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding meeting the requirements of the policy and its attendant Rules. However, in an e-mail message addressed to the Forum, Respondent has asserted that it is a victim of identity theft and that it is unaware of any use to which its identity has been put by the actual domain name holder.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred to it:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the same domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
Further, Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, where a party fails to comply with requirements laid on by the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from that failure as it considers appropriate.
DECISION
It appears from the record that Respondent does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint, except as to its identity as a proper party to this proceeding. It further appears that Respondent does not object to Complainant’s request for the transfer to it of the subject domain name as prayed for in the Complaint, so that the parties have tacitly agreed to the transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings. In the exceptional circumstances here presented, we conclude that no worthwhile purpose would be served by a rendition of findings otherwise customary in proceedings of this sort. See, for example, The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan, D2005-1132, (WIPO January 5, 2006):
A genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements. Where the Complainant has sought transfer of a disputed domain name, and the Respondent consents to transfer, then pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules the Panel can proceed immediately to make an order for transfer. This is clearly the most expeditious course (see Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. EZ-Port, WIPO Case No. D2000-0207).
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <morganstanleycorporate.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: June 24, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page