DECISION

 

Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. casson digital / cassondigital

Claim Number: FA2403002088969

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., United States. Respondent is casson digital / cassondigital ("Respondent"), United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <etradedigital.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

PANEL

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 18, 2024; Forum received payment on March 18, 2024.

 

On March 19, 2024, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by email to Forum that the <etradedigital.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 19, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 8, 2024 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@etradedigital.com. Also on March 19, 2024, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 April 9, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 (including its affiliates and predecessors in interest) has long operated an online stock trading platform under the E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM marks. Complainant's ETRADE business now employs thousands of individuals and provides financial services to millions of consumers. Complainant owns United States trademark registrations for E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM, having used these marks in connection with financial and related services since at least 1992, and alleges that the marks are famous in the financial services industry.

 

The disputed domain name <etradedigital.com> was registered in January 2024. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used for a website titled "Etrade Digital" that offers or purports to offer financial services, including cryptocurrency investment and trading services. Complainant states that these services are identical or closely related to services that Complainant offers. The website contains a login page that prompts users to provide personal or confidential information. Complainant alleges that the services offered on the website are fake. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <etradedigital.com> is confusingly similar to its E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <etradedigital.com> incorporates Complainant's registered E*TRADE trademark, omitting the asterisk and adding the generic term "digital" and the ".com" top-level domain. It also corresponds to Complainant's registered ETRADE.COM mark, inserting the generic term "digital." These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's marks. See, e.g., Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Rahaman Kolajo, FA 2080899 (Forum Feb. 22, 2024) (finding <etradeoption.com> confusingly similar to E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM); Morgan Stanley v. Khodor Dimassi, FA 1672287 (Forum June 6, 2016) (finding <mroganstanleydigital.com> confusingly similar to MORGAN STANLEY). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for a misleading and likely fraudulent website that purports to offer services similar to those offered by Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Chris Mark, FA 2087530 (Forum Apr. 3, 2024) (finding lack of rights or interest in similar circumstances); Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Rahaman Kolajo, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent used a privacy registration service and what appears to be at least partially fictitious underlying registration information to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's marks, and is using the domain name for a misleading and likely fraudulent website that purports to offer services similar to those offered by Complainant. Such circumstances are indicative of registration and use in bad faith. See, e.g., Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Chris Mark, supra (finding bac faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Rahaman Kolajo, supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: April 9, 2024