DECISION

 

Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Ladarius Tremblay

Claim Number: FA2605002224238

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Sarah Sue Landau of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Ladarius Tremblay ("Respondent"), Georgia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <xetrd.com>, <xetrd.trading> and <xetrd.app>, registered with Spaceship, Inc.

 

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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 29, 2026; Forum received payment on May 29, 2026.

 

On June 2, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <xetrd.com>, <xetrd.trading> and <xetrd.app> domain names are registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, Inc. 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 June 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 24, 2026 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@xetrd.com, postmaster@xetrd.trading, and postmaster@xetrd.app. Also on June 4, 2026, 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 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM and submits that the disputed domain names incorporate those marks "in whole … [and] … must be deemed virtually identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's registered marks."

 

Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Furthermore, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual finding pertinent to the decision in this case is that E*TRADE Securities, Inc. is the owner of registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for the marks, E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

Complainant states that, together with its affiliates and predecessors-in-interest, including E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC, E*TRADE Securities, Inc. and E*TRADE Group, Inc., it has long operated a platform that allows retail investors to trade stocks online under and in connection with names and marks containing or comprising E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM.

 

The Complaint goes on to state that (i) "the ETrade business employs thousands of individuals and provides financial services to millions of consumers"; (ii) that it "is the owner of the ETRADE Marks, which are famous marks in the financial services industry"; and (iii) that "Complainant owns registrations for its ETRADE Marks for financial services … [which] … conclusively prove Complainant's rights for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)"; and finally, (iv) that "[a]s a result of Complainant's extensive use and promotion of its ETRADE Marks, the ETRADE Marks enjoy considerable goodwill, widespread recognition, and secondary meaning, such that the ETRADE Marks have become associated with Complainant and the services it provides."

 

What is clear from the evidence accompanying the Complaint is that E*TRADE Securities, Inc. offers financial services under the trademarks E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM. Further, the copies of USPTO certificates exhibited to the Complaint name E*TRADE Securities, Inc. as the owner of the E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM trademark registrations (for example, USPTO Reg. No. 2,574,989, registered June 4, 2002, for ETRADE.COM).

 

It is established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered by a complainant with a national authority is evidence of that complainant's trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003) but here the Complaint describes E*TRADE Securities, Inc. as an "affiliate" of Complainant which would not of its own be a sufficient basis to give Complainant rights to the trademarks (see, for example, Trick or Treat Studios, LLC v. kayleighs kayleighs, FA 2222898 (Forum June 24, 2026); Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Jose Rodriguez / Jose Aldemar. Com, FA 2158443 (Forum June 26, 2025) where this same weakness in Complainant's claim to registered rights was flagged).

 

However, it is not necessary to revisit that issue or to untangle whether Complainant can properly be said to have exercisable common law rights without having joined E*TRADE Group, Inc., for the reason that the comparison of the E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM trademarks with the disputed domain names is itself dispositive of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are virtually identical and confusingly similar to the trademarks. Virtual identity is not the language of the Policy. The compared terms are far from identical. The relevant question is confusing similarity.  In that regard the Panel is bewildered by the submission that the disputed domain names incorporate the E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM marks in whole and so has made its own assessment of the matter. 

 

For the purposes of comparison, the gTLDs would usually be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)) but in these proceedings two of the disputed domain names - <xetrd.com> and <xetrd.trading> - might be compared holistically with the trademarks.  The best-case comparisons are the integer, xetrd, (all domain names stripped of their gTLDs) with E*TRADE; the domain name <xetrd.com> with ETRADE.COM; and the domain name <xetrd.trading> with E*TRADE.

 

The Complaint cites a long list of prior UDRP decisions, but none are apt. They exemplify obvious misspellings of a trademark by pluralization or letter substitution, in all cases leaving the trademark recognizable. Here, none of the domain names comes close to approximating the trademarks. Their objective similarity to the trademarks is minimal and the argument that there would be public confusion is fanciful.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has not satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

No findings required (see, for example, Netsertive, Inc. v. Ryan Howard / Howard Technologies, Ltd., FA 1721637 (Forum Apr. 17, 2017) finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant's failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary); Wasatch Shutter Design v. Duane Howell / The Blindman, FA 1731056 (Forum June 23, 2017) deciding not to inquire into the respondent's rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

No findings required.

 

DECISION

Having failed to establish at least one of the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <xetrd.com>, <xetrd.trading> and <xetrd.app> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Debrett G Lyons, Panelist

Dated: June 26, 2026