Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Ishu Chowdhury
Claim Number: FA2306002049096
Complainant is Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Ishu Chowdhury (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <e-tradefraudprevention.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 14, 2023; Forum received payment on June 14, 2023.
On June 15, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <e-tradefraudprevention.com> Domain Name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 June 15, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 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@e-tradefraudprevention.com. Also on June 15, 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 July 11, 2023 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 and/or members of its group are the owner of trade marks containing E TRADE including E*TRADE registered, inter alia, in the USA with first use recorded as 1992.
The Domain Name registered in 2023 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ETRADE.COM mark adding the generic term ‘fraud prevention’ and a hyphen which do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark.
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 has not been used so there is no bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial fair use. It is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith, passively holding a domain name containing a well known mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant and/or members of its group are the owner of trade marks containing E TRADE including E*TRADE registered, inter alia, in the USA with first use recorded as 1992.
The Domain Name registered in 2023 has not been used.
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 consists of the Complainant’s ETRADE.COM mark (which is registered in USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1998), the generic term ‘fraud prevention’ and a hyphen.
The Panel agrees that the addition of a generic term and a hyphen does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000)(finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). See Health Devices Corp. v Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July , 2003)(The addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4 (a)(i).)
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 Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant and does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 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).
There has been no use of the Domain Name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum April 20, 2005)(Where the panel found inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4( c )(i).)
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not provided any evidence at all of his intentions. He has not rebutted the prima facie case put forward by the Complainant as set out herein.
As such the Panel 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
The Domain Name containing the Complainant’s mark which has a reputation for financial services is being passively held without any explanation.
The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trade mark of another. Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).
As such, the Panel holds 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.
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-tradefraudprevention.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: July 11, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page