Morganstanleytoken.org, Morganstanleytoken.com, Morganstanleytoken.co

The timeline behind morganstanleytoken.org

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION Morgan Stanley v. Guo Li / dave rost Claim Number: FA2111001972162 PARTIES Complainant is Morgan Stanley (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Guo Li / dave rost (“Respondent”), USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <morganstanleytoken.org>, <morganstanleytoken.com>, and <morganstanleytoken.co>, (‘the Domain Names’) registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 5, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 5, 2021. On November 8, 2021, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <morganstanleytoken.org>, <morganstanleytoken.com>, and <morganstanleytoken.co> Domain Names are registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Godaddy.Com, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.Com, 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 November 10, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 30, 2021 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@morganstanleytoken.org, postmaster@morganstanleytoken.com, postmaster@morganstanleytoken.co. Also on November 10, 2021, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On December 2, 2021 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Here, the Complainant has demonstrated that the Domain Names were registered within a short time frame of each other, use the same registrar, and use the same Google hosting ISP in Kansas City, Missouri. Each of the domains contains the same terms “morgan stanley,” and “token,” a generic or descriptive word related to cryptocurrency and none have been linked to an active web site. The Panel finds it is more likely than not that the Domain Names were registered by the same entity or person. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows: The Complainant owns the trade mark MORGAN STANLEY registered, inter alia, in the USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1935. It owns <MorganStanley.com>. The addition of the generic words ‘token’ and a gTLD or a ccTLD do not distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names. Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Names. The passive holding of a domain name containing a well-known mark or use of one for pay per click links does not show a legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods and services. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Intention to capitalize on a well-known mark is bad faith registration and use. Passive holding of a domain name containing a well-known mark and use for pay per click links are both bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant owns the trade mark MORGAN STANLEY registered, inter alia, in the USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1935. It owns Morgan Stanley.com. The Domain Names registered in 2021 have not been connected to an active web site, although <morganstanleytoken.co> has been connected to competing pay per click links. 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. 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 Domain Names in this Complaint combine the Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark (registered in the USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1935), the generic term ‘token and the gTLDs “.com” or “.org” or the ccTLD “.co” for Colombia. The addition of the generic word ‘token’ does not serve to distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant’s MORGAN STANLEY mark. See Abbott Laboratories v. Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec. 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of generic terms do not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant’s mark under Policy 4(a)(i).). gTLDs or ccTLDS do not serve to distinguish domain names from a trade mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See 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.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Names. There has been no connection of the Domain Names to active web sites. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (Where the panel found inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i).). <morganstanleytoken.co> has been used for competing pay per click links which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register domain names containing the Complainant’s mark. MORGAN STANLEY is distinctive and not a descriptive term. The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trade mark of another. Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). Further use for competing pay per click links as in this case for <morganstanleytoken.co> is bad faith registration and use diverting Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting a complainant’s business. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA1504001615034 (Forum June 4, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <capitaloneonebank.com> domain name to display links to the complainant’s competitors, such as Bank of America, Visa, Chase and American Express constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (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 <morganstanleytoken.org>, <morganstanleytoken.com>, and <morganstanleytoken.co> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: December 3, 2021 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.