Morganstenley.cam, Morganstanlcy.cam

The timeline behind morganstenley.cam

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. Andrew Pet / master king Claim Number: FA2201001979024 PARTIES Complainant is Morgan Stanley ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Andrew Pet / master king ("Respondent"), Colorado, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <morganstenley.cam> and <morganstanlcy.cam>, registered with NameCheap, 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. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 4, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 4, 2022. On January 4, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <morganstenley.cam> and <morganstanlcy.cam> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 January 4, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 24, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@morganstenley.cam, postmaster@morganstanlcy.cam. Also on January 4, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 January 26, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively the same person or entity operating under multiple aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder." The disputed domain names <morganstenley.cam> and <morganstanlcy.cam> were registered with the same registrar using the same privacy registration service and nameservers, and the registrations took place on the same day, separated in time by less than one hour. Furthermore, Respondent has not come forward to dispute the allegation that it is one entity acting under multiple aliases, nor to object to the inclusion of both domain names in this proceeding. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are under common control, and that it is therefore appropriate under Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules to include them in a single proceeding under the Policy. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a global financial, investment, and wealth management services company. Complainant has more than 1,000 offices in over 40 countries, and over 55,000 employees worldwide. Complainant has used MORGAN STANLEY and related marks in connection with this business since at least as early as 1935. Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark is registered in countries around the world, including the United States. Complainant asserts that its mark is famous and has become well known to consumers globally as a result of its extensive use and promotion. The disputed domain names <morganstenley.cam> and <morganstanlcy.cam> were registered via a privacy registration service in December 2021. Neither domain name resolves to a website. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, is not a licensee of Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's name or mark, and has no relationship whatsoever to Complainant. Complainant characterizes the disputed domain names as instances of typosquatting. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain names <morganstenley.cam> and <morganstanlcy.cam> are confusingly similar to its MORGAN STANLEY mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Each of the disputed domain names <morganstenley.cam> and <morganstanlcy.cam> incorporates Complainant's registered MORGAN STANLEY trademark, with the space omitted and one letter substitution ("E" for "A" in one instance, and "C" for "E" in the other), appending the ".cam" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Morgan Stanley v. Mike Holly, FA 1966717 (Forum Oct. 27, 2021) (finding <morganstenley.com> confusingly similar to MORGAN STANLEY); Morgan Stanley v. Raymond Wade, FA 1925709 (Forum Jan. 14, 2021) (finding <rnorganstanley.cam> confusingly similar to MORGAN STANLEY). The Panel considers the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain names incorporate misspellings of Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain names, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use, suggesting that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. See, e.g., Morgan Stanley v. Huang Rui, FA 1955003 (Forum Aug. 20, 2021) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent registered two domain names incorporating misspellings of Complainant's famous mark, and has neither engaged in any apparent use or preparation for use of the domain names nor participated in this proceeding. The Panel therefore considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain names intending to use them in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its marks, perhaps in support of a fraudulent phishing scheme, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain names for that purpose. See, e.g., Morgan Stanley v. Huang Rui, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances). The Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <morganstenley.cam> and <morganstanlcy.cam> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: January 31, 2022 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.