Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. See PrivacyGuardian.org / Domain Administrator
Claim Number: FA2307002052292
Complainant is Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is See PrivacyGuardian.org / Domain Administrator (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <e-trades.online>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
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 July 7, 2023; Forum received payment on July 7, 2023.
On July 7, 2023, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <e-trades.online> 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 July 10, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 31, 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-trades.online. Also on July 10, 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 August 3, 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 Domestic Holdings, Inc. offers financial, investment, and wealth management services under the ETrade name.
Complainant asserts rights in E*TRADE based upon its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <e-trades.online> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it contains the E*TRADE mark in its entirety, merely adding the letter “s,” a hyphen to replace the asterisk, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.online” to form the disputed domain name.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <e-trades.online> 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. 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 purportedly offer financial services that compete with Complainant. Additionally, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent’s use of the domain name constitutes typosquatting.
Respondent registered and uses the <e-trades.online> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and uses the domain name to offer financial services that compete with Complainant. Additionally, Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent registered and uses the domain name to create initial interest confusion in internet users. Finally, Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ETRADE mark.
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-trades.online> domain name to address a website, similar to Complainant’s own website, that offers financial 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-trades.online> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s E*TRADE mark. Respondent’s domain name consists of Complainant’s trademark with a hyphen replacing the mark’s domain name impermissible asterisk, followed by the letter “s” and with all followed by the “.online” top-level domain name. The differences between the at-issue <e-trades.online> 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-trades.online>domain name is confusingly similar to E*TRADE. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX mark and adds “the letters ‘btc’ and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.”); see also Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Antonio Teggi, FA 1626528 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (finding the <twitcch.tv> domain name confusingly similar to the TWITCH TV trademark because the domain name consisted of a common misspelling of the mark by merely adding the letter “c”).
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-trades.online> indicates that “See PrivacyGuardian.org/Domain Administrator” is the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is known by the <e-trades.online> domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 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-trades.online> domain name to address a website that appears to offer financial services that compete with services provided by Complainant under its E*TRADE trademark. The website prominently displays the ETRADE mark and includes a cryptocurrency trading platform in an apparent effort to further deceive site visitors into believing that the website is affiliated with Complainant. Respondent’s use of <e-trades.online> 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); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
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.
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 the Policy.
Respondent’s at-issue domain name addresses Respondent’s <e-trades.online> website. Respondent uses the E*TRADE bannered website so that Respondent may pass itself off as Complainant and deceive internet users into falsely believing that the domain name and its referenced website are sponsored by Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent’s <e-trades.online> website purports to offer financial products that compete with Complainant’s E*TRADE offerings. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner 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-trades.online> domain name and Complainant’s E*TRADE trademark. Respondent’s use of <e-trades.online> thus demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of <e-trades.online> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”); 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, FA 1579141 (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.”). Notably, even if Respondent is offering fake services, Respondent’s bad faith is nevertheless demonstrated. See E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC v. Alex Drown, FA 2013318 (Forum Oct. 21, 2022) (finding that a website offering fake financial services was evidence of bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name).
Next, Respondent appears to engage in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark or will read the misspelled trademark laden domain name and confuse it with its target trademark. One may reasonably expect that a number of internet users will mistakenly add an “s” to Complainant’s mark when searching for E*TRADE online and although an “s” is added and the mark’s asterisk is replaced with a hyphen, Complainant’s trademark is nevertheless clearly recognizable when reading the <e-trades.online> domain name and its intentional misspelling may be overlooked. Typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also, Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Skander, FA 135598 (Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (stating that “[b]y registering the ‘typosquatted’ domain name in [Complainant’s] affiliate program, Respondent profits on the goodwill of [Complainant’s] protected marks and primary Internet domain names,” which is evidence of bad faith registration and use).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the E*TRADE mark when it registered <e-trades.online> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual prior knowledge of Complainant’s trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and from Respondent’s use of <e-trades.online> to pose as Complainant and purportedly offer financial services that compete 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-trades.online> 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-trades.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: August 3, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page