Wmorganstanley.com

The timeline behind wmorganstanley.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 v. Wilson Mike Claim Number: FA2502002141789 PARTIES Complainant is Morgan Stanley ("Complainant"), represented by Eric J. Shimanoff of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Wilson Mike ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <wmorganstanley.com>, registered with Squarespace Domains LLC. 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. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 24, 2025; Forum received payment on February 24, 2025. On March 3, 2025, Squarespace Domains LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wmorganstanley.com> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains LLC 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 March 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 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@wmorganstanley.com. Also on March 4, 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 March 25, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 1. Respondent's <wmorganstanley.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <wmorganstanley.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <wmorganstanley.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant holds a registration for the well-known MORGAN STANLEY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 4,470,389, registered January 21, 2014). Respondent registered the <wmorganstanley.com> domain name on January 12, 2025, and uses it to pass off as and compete with 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 The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark through registration with the USPTO. 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 <wmorganstanley.com> domain name uses Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark and simply adds an extra letter and the ".com" gTLD. These changes are not enough to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive element and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.) Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <wmorganstanley.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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"). Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <wmorganstanley.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in its MORGAN STANLEY mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Wilson Mike". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <wmorganstanley.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent is using the domain name to pass off as and appear to compete with Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to compete with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) ("Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.") Complainant provides screenshots showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant, using a photo of Complainant's CIO, and to offer competing financial services. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the <wmorganstanley.com> domain name in bad faith to pass off as Complainant for Respondent's financial gain. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. MIZHAR salem, FA 1774836 (Forum Apr. 4, 2018) (finding bad faith in registration of disputed domains because "[u]sing a disputed domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant for commercial gain . . . can evidence bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); see also 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.") Complainant also claims that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees, noting the fame of the MORGAN STANLEY mark and Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to pass off as and compete with Complainant, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See HDR Global Trading v. Garreth Griggs, FA 1890660 (Forum Apr. 28, 2020) ("Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BITMEX mark when it registered the <xbitmex.com> mark as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from Respondent's use of the domain name to directly compete with Complainant as discussed above. Registering and using a confusingly similar domain name to directly compete with knowledge of Complainant's rights in such domain name in itself shows bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum, May 30, 2003) (In effect, Respondent attempted to pass itself off as Complainant online. Such blatant unauthorized use of Complainant's mark is evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <wmorganstanley.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: March 26, 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.