Etrade-pro.com

The timeline behind etrade-pro.com

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

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

DECISION Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Etrader Pro Claim Number: FA2307002052017 PARTIES Complainant is Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Etrader Pro (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <etrade-pro.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. 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 Forum electronically on July 6, 2023; Forum received payment on July 6, 2023. On July 7, 2023, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <etrade-pro.com> Domain Name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 July 7, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 27, 2023 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@etrade-pro.com. Also on July 7, 2023, 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 August 1, 2023 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant and/or a member of its group is the owner of, inter alia, the trade mark ETRADE.COM registered in the USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1998. The Domain Name registered in 2023 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding the generic term ‘pro’, a hyphen and the gTLD .com which does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has no permission from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s mark. The Domain Name has been used for a site purporting to offer competing services to those of the Complainant using E TRADE as the prominent part of its masthead. Further false registration details for the company behind the site appear to have been given and it does not appear to exist. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services or a non commercial legitimate fair use. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent registered the Domain Name to direct it to a site which uses a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark incorporated in its masthead to confuse Internet users into believing the web site and the Domain Name are associated with the Complainant. The Domain Name has been registered and used in fraudulent opportunistic bad faith to confuse Internet users and disrupt the Complainant’s business. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant and/or a member of its group is the owner of, inter alia, the trade mark ETRADE.COM registered in the USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1998. The Domain Name registered in 2023 has been pointed to a site which uses a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark as the prominent part of its masthead. The registration details given for the company behind the site appear to be false and it does not appear to exist. 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 Name consist of the Complainant’s ETRADE.COM mark (registered in the USA for financial services with first use recorded as 1998), the generic abbreviation ‘pro’, a hyphen and the gTLD .com. Punctuation marks such as hyphens and the addition of a generic term does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark which is still identifiable within the Domain Name. See Microsoft Corporation v Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top level domain and the differences between the domain name and the mark it contains are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy). See also Health Devices Corp. v Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4 (a)(i).”). The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Trip Network Inc. v Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the addition of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy 4 (a)(i) analysis). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is 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 commonly known by the Domain Name. See 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). The web site attached to the Domain Name purports to offer competing services to the Complainant using a confusingly similar sign to the Complainant’s mark as the prominent part of its masthead. It does not make it clear that there is no connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is deceptive. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services). The entity behind the Respondent’s does not appear to exist and false registration details have been given on the site. The use of false company details on the Respondent’s site suggesting the entity behind the site does not exist also suggests deception. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith In the opinion of the Panel the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it uses a confusingly similar sign to the Complainant’s mark as the prominent part of its masthead to offer competing services. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site under Policy 4 (b)(iv) likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant under Policy 4 (b)(iii). See Allianz of AM. Corp v Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website). The registration details of the company said to be the entity behind the site appear to be false and the company does not appear to exist. Use of a company name put forward on the Respondent’s site as the entity supposed to be behind the Respondent’s site, but which does not appear to exist, is also strongly suggestive of bad faith per se. As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was 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 <etrade-pro.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: August 2, 2023 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.