Eye-trades.com

The timeline behind eye-trades.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. eyetrades trades Claim Number: FA2501002134097 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 eyetrades trades ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <eye-trades.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. 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 January 8, 2025; Forum received payment on January 8, 2025. On January 8, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <eye-trades.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 9, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 30, 2025 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@eye-trades.com. Also on January 9, 2025, 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 January 31, 2025, 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 name 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 name is confusingly similar to its E*TRADE mark as it consists of the mark minus the asterisk, merely adding a hyphen, the letters "ey" at the beginning and "s" at the end, together with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com". According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's E*TRADE mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website purports to offer financial trading services, including cryptocurrency investment services and real estate investment services, that are identical or closely related to the services offered by Complainant. However, the financial services offered via Respondent's website are fake: the resolving website displays several photos of its clients on the site, however, an online search of the photos of at least one or more of these individuals shows that their photos appear on other websites with names that do not match the name listed on Respondent's site; additionally, Respondent lists its address as "57 Huddersfield Rd, Holmfirth West Yorkshire HD9 3JH, United Kingdom", however, per a Google Maps search, this address appears to be a public library. The resolving website contains a purported "Log In" page where users are asked to insert personal and confidential account information, ostensibly in an attempt to phish for personal or confidential information of Complainant's clients. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant, to purport to offer competing financial services, and to engage in phishing. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the E*TRADE mark. Respondent engaged in typosquatting. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the mark E*TRADE and uses it to provide financial services. Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 1996. The disputed domain name was registered in 2024. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The resolving website purports to offer financial 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 3.0 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 According to 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"): "In specific limited instances, while not a replacement as such for the typical side-by-side comparison, where a panel would benefit from affirmation as to confusing similarity with the complainant's mark, the broader case context such as website content trading off the complainant's reputation, … may support a finding of confusing similarity." Here, Complainant presents evidence showing that the resolving website attempts to trade off Complainant's reputation. This supports the side-by-side comparison below. The disputed domain name consists of Complainant's E*TRADE mark minus the asterisk, merely adding a hyphen, the letters "ey" at the beginning and "s" at the end, together with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com". Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), omitting an asterisk, adding a gTLD and/or hyphens and/or significant or meaningless letters, 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 Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.' These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."); see also Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Nguyen H, FA 2111064 (Forum Sept. 12, 2024) (finding the domain we-trades1.com to be confusingly similar to Complainant's E*TRADE marks). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant's E*TRADE mark in any way and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Where the WHOIS is related to the disputed domain name, the Panel may still find the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name if the respondent lacks authorization to use the complainant's mark and the respondent fails to provide affirmative evidence in support of its identity. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as "Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund" in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies the registrant as "eyetrades trades" but Respondent provides no affirmative evidence in support of this identity, Complainant provides evidence showing that the services offered on the resolving website are likely fake, and no evidence in the record suggests Respondent is authorized to use the E*TRADE mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant presents evidence showing that the resolving website purports to offer financial 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 name 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 name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant alleges that Respondent engages in typosquatting. According to 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), typosquatting consists of registering a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark. Here, the disputed domain name does not consist of a common, or obvious misspelling of Complainant's mark. Thus the Panel finds that this allegation is unfounded and will not further discuss it. Complainant presents evidence showing that the services offered on the resolving website are likely fake. While this appears to be the case, the Panel need not determine whether or not the services are fake, for the reasons given below. Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website purports to offer financial 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 name 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 <eye-trades.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: January 31, 2025 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.