Etradespace.org

The timeline behind etradespace.org

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. Mohammed Ibraheem Claim Number: FA2502002141792 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 Mohammed Ibraheem ("Respondent"), Israel. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <etradespace.org>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. 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 February 24, 2025; Forum received payment on February 24, 2025. On February 26, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <etradespace.org> 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 February 26, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 18, 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@etradespace.org. Also on February 26, 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 19, 2025, 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 <etradespace.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it contains the E*TRADE mark with its asterisk removed, followed by the term "space," with all followed by the generic top-level domain ".org" to form the at-issue domain name. The elimination of the asterisk from Complainant's E*TRADE mark fails to obviate the confusing similarity. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <etradespace.org> 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 displays the name E TRADING SYSTEM (in the tab description)—which is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks and purports to offer online courses in trading which incorporate AI strategies and tout "expert guidance." Such services are identical or closely related to the services offered by Complainant, all ostensibly in an effort to make consumers believe that Respondent's website is somehow affiliated with Complainant. Complainant itself provides financial trading services and several resources for those learning about trading. The <etradespace.org> website appears to offer fake services and Respondent is using the domain name to impersonate Complainant. Using the at-issue domain name to impersonate Complainant and cause consumer confusion with fake investments is not a legitimate purpose or bona fide offering of goods and services under the Policy. Respondent's <etradespace.org> website also contains a "Sign Up" page where users are asked to insert personal and confidential account information, ostensibly in an attempt by Respondent to phish for such information from Complainant's clients. Phishing for personal and confidential information is not a legitimate purpose or bona fide offering of goods and services under the Policy. Moreover, upon information and belief, the services offered via Respondent's website are fake. The offering of fake services is also not a legitimate or bona fide use of a domain name. Respondent registered and uses the <etradespace.org> domain name in bad faith. Respondent was aware of Complainant's well-known E*TRADE marks when Respondent registered and used the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and offer likely fake financial related services that appear to compete with Complainant. Complainant's marks are so well-known that Respondent would be hard-pressed to provide any legitimate explanation for registering the at-issue domain name other than to take advantage of the goodwill and brand recognition associated with Complainant and its famous ETRADE mark. Respondent's passing off and phishing in violation of Complainant's intellectual property rights is further evidence of bad faith use and registration. Furthermore, Respondent uses the domain name to create initial interest confusion which disrupts Complainant's business. Respondent also registered and uses the at-issue domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the E*TRADE mark. 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 <etradespace.org> domain name to address a website displaying the name E TRADING SYSTEM and that offers putative financial related 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 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 <etradespace.org> 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 "space" with all followed by the ".org" top-level. The differences between the at-issue <etradespace.org> 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 <etradespace.org> domain name is confusingly similar to E*TRADE. See 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 <etradespace.org> indicates that "Mohammed Ibraheem" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is known by the <etradespace.org> domain name. 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 <etradespace.org> domain name to address a website that purports to offer financial related services that compete with services provided by Complainant under its E*TRADE trademark. The website is constructed to deceive website visitors into falsely believing that the <etradespace.org> website is affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's use of <etradespace.org> to pass itself off as Complainant 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 <etradespace.org>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present which allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy. Respondent's at-issue domain name addresses Respondent's <etradespace.org> website. Respondent uses its E TRADING SYSTEM bannered website so that Respondent may pass itself off as Complainant and deceive internet users into falsely believing that the domain name and its referenced website are sponsored by Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent's <etradespace.org> website offers likely fake financial products that appear to compete with some of Complainant's E*TRADE related offerings. 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 <etradespace.org> domain name and Complainant's E*TRADE trademark. Respondent's use of <etradespace.org> thus demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use 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 assuming 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). Next, Respondent's <etradespace.org> website contains a "Sign Up" page. Website visitors are there asked to insert confidential account information which is presumably uploaded to Respondent. Respondent thereby and in bad faith uses the at-issue domain name to phish for private information that it may improperly exploit. Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018)("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses [that] to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).") Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the E*TRADE mark when it registered <etradespace.org> 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 <etradespace.org> to pose as Complainant and purport to offer financial related services that compete with 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 <etradespace.org> pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, 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, 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 <etradespace.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: March 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.