DECISION

 

Morgan Stanley v. James Sharkey

Claim Number: FA2404002092208

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Morgan Stanley ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is James Sharkey ("Respondent"), Washington, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <morganstanll.com>, registered with Realtime Register B.V.

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 8, 2024; Forum received payment on April 8, 2024.

 

On April 9, 2024, Realtime Register B.V. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <morganstanll.com> domain name is registered with Realtime Register B.V. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Realtime Register B.V. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Realtime Register B.V. 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 April 9, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 29, 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@morganstanll.com. Also on April 9, 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 response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On April 30, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it offers a full range of financial, investment, and wealth management services to a broad spectrum of clients through a unique combination of institutional and retail capabilities. With over 1,000 offices in over 40 countries, and over 80,000 employees worldwide, Complainant offers truly global access to financial markets and advice. In 2020, Complainant had net revenues of over US$ 48,000,000,000. Complainant has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark through its registration in the United States in 1992. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is well known.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its MORGAN STANLEY mark because it consists of a misspelling of the mark, together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its MORGAN STANLEY mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website mimics Complainant's legitimate website, and it displays a login page where users were asked to insert personal and confidential account information, ostensibly in an attempt to phish for personal or confidential information of Complainant's clients. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website mimics Complainant's legitimate website and is used for phishing. Respondent engages in typosquatting. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the mark MORGAN STANLEY dating back to at least 1992 and uses it to provide banking and financial services around the world. The mark is well known.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2024.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving website mimics Complainant's legitimate website and displays a login page.

 

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 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

The disputed domain name consists of a misspelling of Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark, together with the generic top-level domain name ("gTLD") ".com". Including a trademark, even if misspelled, in a domain name does not distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("The [<morganstonley.com> and <morganstainley.com>] Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks, as they fully incorporate the MORGAN STANLEY mark, varying it only by subtle misspellings, omitting a space between the words, and adding the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") '.com.'"). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its MORGAN STANLEY mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See 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)). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as "James Sharkey". Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Both the disputed domain name itself, and the content of the resolving website, falsely suggest that they are associated with Complainant. That is not a fair or legitimate use of the disputed domain name. Indeed, according to paragraph 2.5 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): "Fundamentally, a respondent's use of a domain name will not be considered 'fair' if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner …". See 201 Folsom Option JV, L.P. and 201 Folsom Acquisition, L.P. v. John Kirkpatrick, D2014-1359 (WIPO, Oct. 28, 2014). Consequently the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Further, the resolving website displays a login page. Passing off as a complainant to invite users to enter personal and confidential information constitutes phishing and is evidence that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) ("Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website mimics Complainant's legitimate website. Consumers visiting the resolving website are likely to be confused as to whether Respondent and/or its website is affiliated in some way with Complainant; and/or the disputed domain name or the associated website are endorsed, authorized, or sponsored by Complainant, none of which are true. This is a form of bad faith use of the disputed domain name. See Bank of America Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Forum June 3, 2003) (bad faith established "[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant's marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant's affiliation with the resulting search engine website"). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, also as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to phish for Internet users' personal information. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant's customers); see also Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (finding that the respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users through a confusingly similar domain name). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and user per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) on this ground also.

 

In addition, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website mimics Complainant's legitimate website. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Finally, by registering a domain name that is a mere misspelling of Complainant's mark, Respondent engages in typosquatting. A finding of typosquatting can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Zhichao Yang, FA 1970133 (Forum Nov. 24, 2021) ("Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into 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 otherwise confuse the misspelled trademark laden domain name with its target trademark, a web address, an email address, or some other reference to the mark holder."); see also 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). As such, the Panel finds bad faith typosquatting under 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 <morganstanll.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: April 30, 2024