Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Clever Igboriawie / KleverWaveLinks
Claim Number: FA2305002045555
Complainant is Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Clever Igboriawie / KleverWaveLinks (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <e-tradingoption.com>, registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 23, 2023; Forum received payment on May 23, 2023.
On May 23, 2023, OwnRegistrar, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <e-tradingoption.com> domain name is registered with OwnRegistrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. OwnRegistrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the OwnRegistrar, Inc. 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 24, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 13, 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@e-tradingoption.com. Also on May 24, 2023, 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 June 15, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Morgan Stanley, offers financial, investment, and wealth management services under the E*trade name.
Complainant asserts rights to E*TRADE and related marks based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <e-tradingoption.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the E*TRADE mark in a misspelled form, omitting the “e” at the end of the mark and adding “ing”, removes the asterisk, and adds a hyphen, the generic or descriptive term “option”, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to form.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <e-tradingoption.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s E*TRADE mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to offer competing financial services. Furthermore, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <e-tradingoption.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the domain name disrupts Complainant’s business while passing off as Complainant and thereby creating a false sense of affiliation with Complainant. Further, Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name to offer financial services that compete with Complainant’s business. Respondent’s website disrupts Complainant’s business as the domain name causes initial interest confusion. Also, Respondent’s registration and use of the at-issue domain name is an example of typosquatting.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the E*TRADE mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the E*TRADE trademark.
Respondent uses the <e-tradingoption.com> domain name to address a website that pretends to be affiliated with Complainant and purports to offers services that compete with Complainant’s offering.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO trademark registration for E*TRADE sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <e-tradingoption.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s E*TRADE mark. The domain name consists of a recognizable distortion of Complainant’s trademark where the mark’s asterisk is replaced with a hyphen and the mark’s “e” is replaced with “ing” followed by the suggestive term “option” with all followed by the “.com” top-level domain name. The differences between the at-issue <e-tradingoption.com> domain name and Complainant’s E*TRADE trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent’s <e-tradingoption.com> domain name is confusingly similar to E*TRADE. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark").
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and “Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.”).
The WHOIS information for <e-tradingoption.com> indicates that “Clever Igboriawie / KleverWaveLinks” is the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is known by the <e-tradingoption.com> domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent uses the confusingly similar <e-tradingoption.com> domain name to address a website that offers services under an E-Trading Option banner that compete with services provided by Complainant under its E*TRADE trademark. Respondent’s use of <e-tradingoption.com> in this manner is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent’s <e-tradingoption.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present which lead the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent’s at-issue domain name addresses Respondent’s <e-tradingoption.com> website. Respondent uses the website so that Respondent may pass itself off as Complainant and further deceive internet users into falsely believing that the domain name and its referenced website are sponsored by Complainant. Furthermore and although it is unlikely that Respondent ever delivers any services, Respondent’s <e-tradingoption.com> website purports to offer financial products that compete with Complainant’s E*TRADE offerings. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name is disruptive to Complainant’s business and designed to attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its <e-tradingoption.com> domain name and Complainant’s E*TRADE trademark and related marks. Respondent’s use of <e-tradingoption.com> thus demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of <e-tradingoption.com> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the at-issue domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also, G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract internet users to its commercial website to sell the complainant’s products ); see also, Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the E*TRADE mark when it registered <e-tradingoption.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s prior actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and from Respondent’s use of <e-tradingoption.com> to pose as Complainant and offer services competing with Complainant’s offering. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in E*TRADE further shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of <e-tradingoption.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (“Complainant contends Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant’s reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark prior to registration and this constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also, 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <e-tradingoption.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: June 16, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page