Etrades.club

The timeline behind etrades.club

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. Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc. Claim Number: FA2501002136880 PARTIES Complainant is Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc. ("Respondent"), Cyprus. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <etrades.club>, registered with CommuniGal Communication Ltd. 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 Forum electronically on January 24, 2025; Forum received payment on January 24, 2025. On January 29, 2025, CommuniGal Communication Ltd. confirmed by email to Forum that the <etrades.club> domain name is registered with CommuniGal Communication Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. CommuniGal Communication Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the CommuniGal Communication Ltd. 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 29, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 18, 2025 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@etrades.club. Also on January 29, 2025, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 19, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 (including its affiliates and predecessors in interest) has long operated an online stock trading platform under the E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM marks. Complainant's ETRADE business now employs thousands of individuals and provides financial services to millions of consumers. Complainant owns United States trademark registrations for E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM, having used these marks in connection with financial and related services since at least 1992, and alleges that the marks are famous in the financial services industry. The disputed domain name <etrades.club> was registered in December 2024. The name is registered in the name of Respondent. The domain name is being used to redirect users to websites that prominently display Complainant's E*TRADE logo, purport to offer a cash bonus for signing up for Complainant's services, prompt the user to enter an email address, and promote other third-party businesses. Complainant alleges that the Respondent is using the domain name and these websites in an attempt to phish for potential investors' personal, banking, and account information and to commit fraud. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <etrades.club> is confusingly similar to its E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is 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 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 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/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; 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 The disputed domain name <etrades.club> corresponds to Complainant's registered E*TRADE trademark, omitting the asterisk and adding a letter "S" and the ".club" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Butcher Hub / Butcher, FA 2127154 (Forum Dec. 27, 2024) (finding <etrades.info> confusingly similar to E*TRADE); Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Magnus Thomsen Lund / Nordic Skin, FA 2091483 (Forum Apr. 26, 2024) (finding <we-trade.club> confusingly similar to E*TRADE); Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Milen Radumilo, FA 2057380 (Forum Sept. 7, 2023) (finding <e-trade.club> confusingly similar to E*TRADE); E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC v. Daniel Jones, FA 1987827 (Forum Apr. 11, 2022) (finding <etrades.com> confusingly similar to E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM). The Panel considers the disputed domain name 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 name, 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 name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used in connection with misleading websites that attempt to pass off as Complainant for fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Butcher Hub / Butcher, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Jan Everno / Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc., FA 2086391 (Forum Mar. 31, 2024) (same). 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 name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed 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 a domain name incorporating and obviously intended to create confusion with Complainant's well-known mark, and is using it to direct users to misleading websites that attempt to pass off as Complainant for fraudulent purposes. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Butcher Hub / Butcher, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC v. Jan Everno / Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc., supra (same). The Panel so finds. 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 <etrades.club> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: February 19, 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.