Morgan Stanley v. domain share
Claim Number: FA2212002024030
Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York. Respondent is domain share (“Respondent”), HK.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <morganstank.xyz>, (the “Domain Name”) registered with NameSilo, LLC.
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.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 14, 2022; Forum received payment on December 14, 2022.
On December 14, 2022, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <morganstank.xyz> Domain Name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 December 16, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 5, 2023 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@morganstank.xyz. Also on December 16, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 9, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the MORGAN STANLEY mark, registered, inter alia, in the United States for financial services with first use recorded as 1935. It is well known.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark consisting of a misspelling of the Complainant’s mark replacing the last three letters with the letter “k” and the gTLD “.xyz” which does not prevent the said confusing similarity.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name resolved to a website that impersonated Morgan Stanley, including by prominently displaying the MORGAN STANLEY mark in English and Chinese as a masthead, a photo of Morgan Stanley’s building at its corporate headquarters in New York, and offering purported financial advisory and investment management services identical or nearly identical to services offered by Morgan Stanley. In addition, Respondent’s site was engaged in attempted phishing by requesting that visitors enter their account login information in a
login window immediately below an image of the MORGAN STANLEY marks in English and Chinese.
Phishing does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith diverting Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant’s business. Typosquatting is bad faith per se.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the MORGAN STANLEY mark, registered, inter alia, in the United States for financial services with first use recorded as 1935. It is well known.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 has been used for a page appearing to be an official site of the Complainant (using its mark in English and Chinese as a masthead and a picture of one of its offices) which was phishing by means of a log in screen.
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 Domain Name consist of a misspelling of the Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark (which is registered in USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1935), substituting the letter “k” for the last three letters of the Complainant’s mark and adding the gTLD “.xyz”.
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), replacing letters in a mark with other letters, or misspelling, while adding a gTLD is insufficient in differentiating a domain name from the mark. See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018). See Red Hat Inc v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the <redhat.org> domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark.
As such, the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The web site attached to the Domain Name has been used for a page appearing to be an official site of the Complainant using its mark in English and Chinese as a masthead, a photograph of one of its offices and a log in screen. The site appears to be gathering information for phishing purposes. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), the use of a disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See 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).”).
The Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registration. Typosquatting is also an indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (“Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspelling Complainant’s mark. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent engages in opportunistic bad faith with the well-known MORGAN STANLEY mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), when a mark is famous, use of the mark in a disputed domain name may be considered evidence of opportunistic bad faith disrupting the Complainant’s business. See Harrods Ltd. v. Harrod’s Closet, D2001-1027 (WIPO Sept. 28, 2001) (finding that where a mark is so “obviously connected with well-known products,” it’s very use by someone with no connection to these products can evidence opportunistic bad faith); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant”).
Respondent uses the Domain Name to engage in apparent phishing. The use of a disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme is considered evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”)
The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant’s mark and be taken to the Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (“Respondent’s domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters … Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent’s actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.”).
Respondent has used a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark which is well known in the financial and investment services industries to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain. See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <morganstank.xyz> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: January 9, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page