DECISION

 

Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Opeoluwa Odusan / AutomateGxP LLC

Claim Number: FA2606002227699

 

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 Opeoluwa Odusan / AutomateGxP LLC ("Respondent"), California USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <etraderadar.com> and <etraderadar.net>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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 June 16, 2026; Forum received payment on June 16, 2026.

 

On June 17, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <etraderadar.com> and <etraderadar.net> domain names are registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 June 18, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 8, 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@etraderadar.com, postmaster@etraderadar.net. Also on June 18, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however sent an email to Forum, see below.

 

On July 9, 2026, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it operates in the financial services industry. Complainant originated as a platform that allowed retail investors to trade stocks online. Today, Complainant provides a suite of digital financial services for investors, traders, financial advisors, stock plan participants, and stock plan administrators. Complainant employs thousands of individuals and provides services to millions of customers. Complainant asserts rights to the E*TRADE mark based upon its registration in the United States in 1996.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its E*TRADE mark as they consist of the mark minus the asterisk, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "radar", and the generic top-level domains ("gTLDs") ".com" or ".net". Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's E*TRADE mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to pass off as Complainant and to offer competing services. Specifically, the disputed domain name <etraderadar.com> resolves to a website that offers a purported educational service regarding options trading, inter alia, which are closely related to Complainant's own financial services. Consumers very easily could believe that Respondent's website is affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant and its well-known E*TRADE marks. Indeed, Complainant itself provides educational materials regarding online trading—including cryptocurrency-related trading—and investment. The <etraderadar.net> domain was used as part of the same site as described above, and redirected to the same site as the other disputed domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names to pass off as Complainant and to offer competing services. Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the E*TRADE mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

In its email to Forum; Respondent states, in pertinent part:

I wish to clarify that the registration of these domain names was made in good faith and without any intent to infringe upon, capitalize on, or create confusion with Morgan Stanley's E*TRADE trademark or business operations.

 

The domains were acquired as part of a concept involving market analysis, trading intelligence, and "radar"-based monitoring tools. At no time was there any intention to represent an affiliation with ETRADE, Morgan Stanley, or any of their subsidiaries. The domains have not been used to impersonate, mislead, divert customers from, or otherwise exploit the goodwill associated with the ETRADE brand.

 

I respect Morgan Stanley's intellectual property rights and would like to resolve this matter professionally and amicably. In the interest of avoiding unnecessary expense and administrative proceedings for both parties, I am willing to discuss a mutually agreeable resolution.

 

Please let me know whether Morgan Stanley would be interested in exploring an amicable settlement of this matter prior to the completion of the UDRP proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark E*TRADE and uses it to provide financial services, and related educational services.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 1996.

 

The disputed domain names were registered in 2024.

 

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

 

The resolving websites offer services that compete with those of Complainant.

 

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 3.1 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 names incorporate Complainant's E*TRADE mark in its entirety (minus the asterisk), merely adding the generic/descriptive term "radar", and the ".com" or ".net" generic top-level domains ("gTLDs"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), omitting an asterisk, adding a gTLD and/or generic terms is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark); see also 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 Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's E*TRADE mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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 Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as "Opeoluwa Odusan / AutomateGxP LLC". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant presents evidence showing that the resolving websites offer services that compete with those of Complainant. The use of a domain name to sell products 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), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(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)."); see also Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. It does not contest that the resolving websites offer services that compete with those of Complainant.

 

The use of a disputed domain name to offer products or services similar to a complainant's evinces an intent to attract internet users for commercial gain per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

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 <etraderadar.com> and <etraderadar.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: July 9, 2026