Etradevip.shop

The timeline behind etradevip.shop

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, LLC v. Muhammad Arslan Ashraf Claim Number: FA2409002114455 PARTIES Complainant is Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Muhammad Arslan Ashraf ("Respondent"), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <etradevip.shop>, registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com. 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 6, 2024; Forum received payment on September 6, 2024. On September 8, 2024, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <etradevip.shop> domain name is registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com 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 September 9, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 30, 2024 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@etradevip.shop. Also on September 9, 2024, 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 October 1, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 Complainant contends in part as follows: Complainant, Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. offers financial, investment, and wealth management services under the E*Trade name. Complainant asserts rights in E*TRADE based upon its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Respondent's <etradevip.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it contains the E*TRADE mark with its asterisk removed, followed by the term "vip" with all followed by the generic top-level domain ".shop" to form the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <etradevip.shop> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's E*TRADE mark and is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to address a website that offers purported financial services, including purported investment management services—that are closely related to Complainant's own financial services, and prominently displays the company name and mark "ETRADE" which is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's ETRADE marks. Respondent registered and uses the <etradevip.shop> domain name in bad faith. Respondent was aware of Complainant's well-known E*TRADE marks when Respondent registered and used the domain name and chose the domain name because it was confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known marks and Respondent intended to capitalize on that confusion. Respondent would be hard pressed to provide any legitimate explanation for registering the at-issue domain name except to take advantage of the goodwill in Complainant's trademark. Furthermore, Respondent uses the domain name to create initial interest confusion. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the E*TRADE mark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the E*TRADE trademark. Respondent uses the <etradevip.shop> domain name to address a website displaying the E*TRADE mark as E Trade that purportedly offers financial services similar to Complainant's offering. 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 3.0 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 Complainant contends in part as follows: The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's USPTO trademark registration for E*TRADE sufficiently demonstrates Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Respondent's <etradevip.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's E*TRADE mark. Respondent's domain name consists of Complainant's trademark less its domain name impermissible asterisk, followed by the term "vip," with all followed by the ".shop" top-level. The differences between the at-issue <etradevip.shop> domain name and Complainant's E*TRADE trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent's <etradevip.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to E*TRADE. See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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.") Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name."). The WHOIS information for <etradevip.shop> indicates that "Muhammad Arslan Ashraf" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is known by <etradevip.shop>. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent uses the confusingly similar <etradevip.shop> domain name to address a website that purports to offer financial services that are similar to services provided by Complainant under its E*TRADE trademark. The website is constructed to deceive site visitors into falsely believing that the website may be affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's use of <etradevip.shop> in this manner is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under 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); see also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <etradevip.shop>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present which lead the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy. Respondent's at-issue domain name addresses Respondent's <etradevip.shop> website. Respondent uses its E*TRADE incorporating domain name and associated website to deceive internet users into falsely believing that the domain name and its referenced website are sponsored by Complainant in an effort to attract internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's website. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner is disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its <etradevip.shop> domain name and Complainant's E*TRADE trademark. Respondent's use of <etradevip.shop> thus demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <etradevip.shop> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also, G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract internet users to its commercial website to sell the complainant's products ); see also, Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (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."). Notably, even given that Respondent is offering fake services; Respondent's bad faith is nevertheless demonstrated. See E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC v. Alex Drown, FA2209002013318 (Forum October 21, 2022) (finding that a website offering fake financial services was evidence of bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the E*TRADE mark when it registered <etradevip.shop> as a domain name. Respondent's actual prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's mark and from Respondent's use of <etradevip.shop> to pose as "E Trade" and purport to offer financial services that are similar to Complainant's offering. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in E*TRADE further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <etradevip.shop> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) ("Complainant contends Respondent's appropriation of Complainant's trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant's reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark prior to registration and this constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <etradevip.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: October 1, 2024 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.