DECISION

 

Morgan Stanley v. Patrick Rollins/ MORGAN STANLEY

Claim Number: FA2405002098802

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Morgan Stanley ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Patrick Rollins/ MORGAN STANLEY ("Respondent"), Ohio, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <morganstanleyaccount.com>, registered with Squarespace Domains II 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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 21, 2024; Forum received payment on May 21, 2024.

 

On May 22, 2024, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <morganstanleyaccount.com> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II 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 May 22, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 11, 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@morganstanleyaccount.com. Also on May 22, 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 June 12, 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 incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "account" and 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 disputed domain is not being used. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name is not being used. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark. Respondent's WHOIS contact lists an Organization name of "Morgan Stanley" and lists Morgan Stanley's real address in Cleveland. The WHOIS information is false: a third party registered the disputed domain name and is impersonating Complainant. 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 disputed domain name is not being used. The WHOIS information is false: the listed address is that of one of Complainant's offices.

 

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 incorporates Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "account", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Such changes are insufficient to defeat a finding of confusing similarity. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). 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

Respondent is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant's mark in any way and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Where the WHOIS is related to the disputed domain name, the Panel may still find the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name if the respondent lacks authorization to use the complainant's mark and the respondent fails to provide affirmative evidence in support of its identity. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as "Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund" in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies the registrant as "Patrick Rollins/ MORGAN STANLEY" but Respondent provides no affirmative evidence in support of this identity and no evidence in the record suggests Respondent is authorized to use the MORGAN STANLEY mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The disputed domain name is not being used. This is generally not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of a domain name. See Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain.  Respondent's <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message "website coming soon!"). The Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have any 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, Respondent registered the disputed domain name using false WHOIS contact information: the listed address is that of one of Complainant's offices. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) ("As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v. Global Mgr, FA 1716963 (Forum Mar. 30, 2017) ("Complainant contends that Respondent provided false contact information while registering the disputed domain. Registering a confusingly similar domain name using false contact information can evince bad faith registration."); see also j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. Vijay S Kumar/Strategic Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd, FA 1647718 (Forum Jan. 4, 2016) ("False or misleading contact information indicates bad faith registration and use."); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Phillip Thomas/Chevron Pacific, FA 1615524 (Forum May 29, 2015) ("Complainant's use of false registration data and its unexplained redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant's own website are further indications of such bad faith."); see also McDonald's Corp. v. Holy See, FA 155458 (Forum June 27, 2003) ("The Panel finds that Respondent provided false contact information in the registration certificates and that such actions, even though not specifically enumerated in the Policy, may form the basis for a finding of bad faith registration and use."); see also Mars, Incorporated v. RaveClub Berlin, FA 97361 (Forum July 16, 2001) (providing false registration and contact information for infringing domain names evidenced Respondent's bad faith). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The disputed domain name is not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): "From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put."

 

In the present case, Complainant's trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) ("Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy"); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant's well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int'l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) ("The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith.").

 

There has been no response to the Complaint. The domain name was registered using false WHOIS information, that is false contact details were used. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain name is not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the WHOIS address is that of one of Complainant's actual offices. 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 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 <morganstanleyaccount.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: June 12, 2024