DECISION

 

Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Thomas Owen

Claim Number: FA2402002086220

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Thomas Owen ("Respondent"), Nigeria.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <etradermarket.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with Wild West Domains, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 29, 2024; Forum received payment on February 29, 2024.

 

On February 29, 2024, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <etradermarket.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 March 1, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 21, 2024 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@etradermarket.com. Also on March 1, 2024, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 22, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, through its affiliates including E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC and predecessors in title, has since 1992 operated a platform for the electronic trading of financial assets.  Complainant has rights in the E*TRADE mark through Complainant's registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 1,985,826, registered July 9, 1996).  Respondent's <etradermarket.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's E*TRADE  mark as it simply adds the letter "r", the generic term "market" and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com" to the market while removing the asterisk.

 

Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <etradermarket.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the E*TRADE mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the Domain Name is used to offer competing financial trading services.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <etradermarket.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to disrupt Complainant's business and divert customers for commercial gain. Finally, Respondent registered the Domain Name, with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the E*TRADE mark given the use of the Domain Name to offer competing financial trading services.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.  On March 2, 2024 Respondent sent an e-mail to Forum, the relevant contents of which are reproduced below:

 

"It's just simple I don't want to be involved in these legal stuffs, just compensate me with $5,000 and I will do all you want."

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the E*TRADE mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's E*TRADE mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 formal 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has rights in the E*TRADE mark based on registration with the USPTO (e.g Reg. No. 1,985,826, registered Jul. 9, 1996).  Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").").

 

The Panel finds that the <etradermarket.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's E*TRADE mark as it incorporates the portion of the E*TRADE mark reproducible in a domain name (an asterisk is not reproducible in a domain name) and adds the letter "r" (to create a minor misspelling), the generic term "market" and the gTLD ".com". The addition of a generic term to a misspelled mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1610122 (Forum July 9, 2015) (finding, "The domain name differs from the mark only in that the domain name substitutes the letter 'a' in the word 'steak' with the letter 'c' and adds the generic Top Level Domain ('gTLD') '.com.'  These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."); see also Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where "[t]he disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term 'outlet' to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the '.com' top-level domain."); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.  In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.  See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light.  If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.").  The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the E*TRADE mark.  Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant.  WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged.  See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS lists "Thomas Owen" as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding resolved to a website where Respondent purported to offer financial trading services in direct competition with Complainant.  The use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect to a competing website does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (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).").  

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, July 9, 2023, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's E*TRADE mark, which had been in use for over 30 years at the time and had developed a significant reputation in the field of financial trading services.  The Respondent provides no reason for the registration of the Domain Name and purports to offer services from the Domain Name that wholly incorporates the portion of the E*TRADE mark reproducible in a domain name that are in direct competition with the Complainant's services.  In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent has used the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to Respondent's own website where Respondent purports to offer financial trading services in direct competition with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent's competing website can show bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt the complainant's business by diverting Internet users from the complainant's website to the respondent's website where it offered competing printer products).   Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). 

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <etradermarket.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: March 23, 2024