Morganstanleyclientservice.com

The timeline behind morganstanleyclientservice.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. Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc. Claim Number: FA2506002162530 PARTIES Complainant is Morgan Stanley ("Complainant"), 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 <morganstanleyclientservice.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc. 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 25, 2025; Forum received payment on June 25, 2025. On June 25, 2025, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <morganstanleyclientservice.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 June 26, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 16, 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@morganstanleyclientservice.com. Also on June 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 July 16, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 i) Complainant, MORGAN STANLEY, offers various financial services. Complainant has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,707,196, registered August 11, 1992). Complainant also has rights in the CLIENTSERV mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,322,252, registered February 22, 2000). As a result of extensive use, promotion, and advertisement, the MORGAN STANLEY and CLIENTSERV marks are well known to consumers. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks because, although it employs a misspelling of Complainant's CLIENTSERV mark (adding the letters "i", "c", and "e" to the end of CLIENTSERV), such alterations do not dispel the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's marks. ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its MORGAN STANLEY or CLIENTSERV marks in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offerings of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name redirects users to download software that appears to contain malware. Respondent's practice of typosquatting, i.e., intentional misspelling, of Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY and CLIENTSERV marks further supports the conclusion that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The domain name redirects users to download software that appears to contain malware. Complainant's marks are so well known that it is difficult to conceive of any legitimate reason for Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name other than to exploit the goodwill and brand recognition associated with Complainant, its CLIENTSERV mark, and its famous MORGAN STANLEY mark. By creating initial interest confusion, Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant's business, which constitutes further evidence of bad faith. Respondent is presumed to have had both actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant's marks at the time of registration of the confusingly similar domain name. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on May 25, 2025. 2. Complainant has established rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,707,196, registered August 11, 1992). 3. Complainant has established rights in the CLIENTSERV mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,322,252, registered February 22, 2000). 4. The disputed domain name redirects users to download software that appears to contain malware. 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 asserts rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark based on its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,707,196, registered August 11, 1992), and in the CLIENTSERV mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,322,252, registered February 22, 2000). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is considered valid evidence of rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As Complainant has submitted proof of the USPTO registration for the MORGAN STANLEY and CLIENTSERV marks, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <morganstanleyclientservice.com>, is confusingly similar to its MORGAN STANLEY and CLIENTSERV marks because, although it employs a misspelling of Complainant's CLIENTSERV mark (adding the letters "i", "c", and "e" to the end of CLIENTSERV), such alterations do not dispel the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's marks. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name simply combines Complainant's two registered marks with minor misspellings, and thus finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc." as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant further argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name redirects users to download software that appears to contain malware. Complainant's customers and other Internet users may reasonably, but mistakenly, believe that they are required to download such software in order to access Complainant's official website, and that Respondent's website is sponsored by, or affiliated with, Complainant. When a disputed domain name is used for malicious purposes, such as distributing malware, it does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i), (iii). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1785199 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("Respondent uses the <coechella.com> domain name to direct internet users to a website which is used to attempt to install malware on visiting devices. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website, which displayed "morganstanleyclientservice.com" in large font across the top of the screen, ostensibly to make consumers believe that the domain was associated with Complainant. The site also displayed a purported "Security Check" page which prompted users to download software and "reclaim digital freedom." Based on this evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website attempting to install malware on visiting devices. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i), (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters establish the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith, as the domain is employed to distribute malware. Where a domain name is used for malicious purposes such as malware distribution, panels have consistently found bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Asbury Communities, Inc. v. Tiffany Hedges, FA 1785054 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("The Panel here finds that Respondent [installation of malware] further supports the conclusion that Respondent registered and used the <asburymethodistvillage.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). As previously noted, Complainant provides evidence supporting these claims, including the use of the disputed domain name to induce Internet users to install suspicious malware. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent's conduct disrupts Complainant's business and constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith with knowledge of Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY and CLIENTSERV marks. While constructive knowledge alone may not suffice to establish bad faith, the global notoriety of a mark may demonstrate actual knowledge at the time of registration and thereby support a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel notes that Complainant operates in over 40 countries, employs more than 80,000 individuals globally, and provides international financial services and market access. Complainant has used marks incorporating MORGAN STANLEY in connection with financial and related services since at least 1935, and those marks continue to enjoy widespread use. In 2024, Complainant had net revenues of over US$61 billion. Complainant has consistently ranked among Tenet Partners', formerly CoreBrand, 100 Top Brands in the United States, and was ranked 33rd and 34th, respectively, in Brand Finance's 2019 and 2020 Banking 500 global brand rankings. Accordingly, the MORGAN STANLEY mark is recognized as a well-known and reputable trademark. The Panel further notes that Complainant and its predecessors-in-interest have used the CLIENTSERV mark in connection with online financial management services since at least as early as 1999, and the mark remains in active use today. As a result of extensive use, promotion, and advertisement, the CLIENTSERV mark is also well known to consumers. The Panel therefore infers, based on the fame of Complainant's marks and Respondent's use of the disputed domain name that combines and misspells Complainant's CLIENTSERV mark, that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MORGAN STANLEY and CLIENTSERV marks, supporting a finding of bad faith registration under 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 <morganstanleyclientservice.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: July 17, 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.