Etradebot.com

The timeline behind etradebot.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. Christian da Silva Ferreira Claim Number: FA2606002227701 PARTIES Complainant is Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Sarah Sue Landau of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is Christian da Silva Ferreira ("Respondent"), Brazil. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <etradebot.com>, registered with Gransy, s.r.o. 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. Steven M. Levy as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 16, 2026; Forum received payment on June 16, 2026. On June 23, 2026, Gransy, s.r.o. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <etradebot.com> domain name is registered with Gransy, s.r.o. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gransy, s.r.o. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gransy, s.r.o. 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 25, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 15, 2026 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@etradebot.com. Also on June 25, 2026, 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. An informal Response was received and determined to be complete on June 25, 2026. On July 16, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy as Panelist. On July 17, 2026, Complainant submitted an Additional Statement and evidence relating to assignment of its trademark registrations to Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC. 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER The Panel notes that, in a circumstance such as this where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name to Complainant, it may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the disputed domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer). However, 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." As such, "[p]roceeding to decision despite consent to transfer is discretionary with the Panel. It depends on the circumstances and reasons for respondent's consent." The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, at 8.04-A.5.iii (Gerald M. Levine, Legal Corner Press, 2025); UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 0.20 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org. Where there is no indication that the disputed domain name was registered, not out of intent to target a complainant's trademark but out of ignorance, negligence, or the like, a Panel may determine that the case requires a full analysis despite a consent to transfer. In one decision, a Panel noted that "there is a public interest in having clarified the improper use of the Complainant's trademarks in the present case, if that is revealed by the evidence." Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. v. Durable Technologies / durable, FA 2145594 (Forum April 16, 2025). In the present case, Respondent has specifically stated: "I do not intend to contest this proceeding and I have no objection to the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant." However, the content of Respondent's website raises some troubling questions as to its intent in registering and using the disputed domain name and its communication to Forum (see below) offers no insight into its motivations apart from providing an express disclaimer of any rights or legitimate interests. As such, the Panel determines that it is in the public interest to issue a fully analyzed decision in this matter despite Respondent's consent to transfer of the disputed domain name. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant Morgan Stanley Domestic Holdings, LLC, with its affiliates and predecessors-in-interest, including E*Trade Financial Holdings, LLC, E*TRADE Securities, Inc. and E*TRADE Group, Inc. (collectively, "Complainant") has, since 1992, operated a platform that allows retail investors to trade stocks online under and in connection with names and marks containing or comprising E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM. It provides a suite of digital financial services for investors, traders, financial advisors, stock plan participants, and stock plan administrators under the marks. The marks are the subject of numerous registrations at the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") including Reg. No. 1985826 dated July 9, 1996; Reg. No. 2220629 dated June 26, 1999; and Reg. No. 2574989 dated June 4, 2002. Complainant also owns the domain name <etrade.com> which it uses for its primary website. The <etradebot.com> domain name, registered on August 7, 2025, is confusingly similar to the E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM marks as it incorporates the marks in whole and only adds the generic term "bot" and the ".com" TLD. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and its hosting of a website that solicits login and personal information from existing or potential customers of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant's marks and based on the above-mentioned activity. B. Respondent The entirety of Respondent's informal Response is as follows: Dear Case Coordinator, I acknowledge receipt of the Complaint regarding Case No. FA2606002227701 concerning the domain name <etradebot.com>. I do not intend to contest this proceeding and I have no objection to the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant. I do not claim any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name and I will not be submitting a formal Response. Please let me know if any further action is required from my side. Thank you. Kind regards, Christian da Silva Ferreira FINDINGS - Complainant owns rights to the E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM trademarks and the <etradebot.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the marks; - Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and it operates an impersonation website aimed at competing with Complainant and soliciting information from Complainant's existing and potential customers; and - The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's marks and hosts a website that passes itself off as Complainant, purportedly to offer competing services and solicit information from Complainant's existing and potential customers. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in its E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM marks through its registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the 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).") Here, Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registration certificates.1 Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the E*TRADE and ETRADE.com marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <etradebot.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM marks because it incorporates the entirety of the marks and adds the word "bot" and the ".com" TLD. Where the dominant portion of a mark is incorporated into a domain name, the addition of generic or descriptive words typically does not negate any confusing similarity with an asserted mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD '.com.' These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark.") As the most distinctive elements of Complainants marks are clearly discernable in the <etradebot.com> domain name, and only the generic word "bot" and the ".com" TLD are added to the marks, the Panel 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 names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that 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 first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use Complainant's E*TRADE or ETRADE.COM marks or register domain names using the marks. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly 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 that 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 bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. See 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)"). The WHOIS record for the disputed domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar after the Complaint was filed, identifies Respondent as "Christian da Silva Ferreira" and there is no evidence that Respondent is known otherwise. Further, the fact that the term "Etrade" appears on Respondent's website does not, itself, indicate that Respondent is commonly known thereby where such use appears intended to create consumer confusion. Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.") In addition, Complainant specifically states that "Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor has Respondent ever been authorized by Complainant to register or use the ETRADE Marks or the disputed domain name. Indeed, Respondent has no relationship whatsoever with Complainant." In its email to Forum, Respondent has not contested this but, rather, has expressly stated that "I do not claim any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name". Therefore, the Panel finds no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, addressing Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), the Complaint asserts that Respondent does not use its domain names in the bona fide sale of goods or services as the website of the disputed domain name impersonates Complainant and seeks sensitive information from users. Passing oneself off as a complainant and seeking login or other sensitive personal information, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mu LA to, FA 2227687 (Forum July 9, 2026) ("soliciting visitors' e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and passwords through its login page. Passing oneself off as a complainant in order to harvest Internet users' personal information in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).") Here, Complainant provides a screenshot of the website for of the disputed domain name which displays a "Login" form soliciting users' email address and password. A second screenshot shows an account creation page inviting users to input their first and last names, email address, phone number, and to create a password. The footer, in both screenshots, displays the message "©2026 Etrade". There is no mention on Respondent's site explaining the lack of any affiliation with or approval by Complainant. From this evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent's site is impersonating Complainant and seeking to deceptively harvest sensitive information while falsely conveying to users that the site originates with or is provided under the auspices of Complainant. Thus, Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and that it is also not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). As noted above, Respondent has expressly disclaimed any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and, in any event, it has not rebutted Complainant's case. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual or constructive knowledge of the E*TRADE and ETRADE.COM marks. While application of the concept of constructive notice in UDRP cases is either not accepted or limited only to those situations where the respondent is based in The United States where such legal rule applies, a respondent's actual knowledge of an asserted trademark can form a solid foundation upon which a case for bad faith may be built under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.") To support this contention, Complainant asserts that its marks have become "famous" and have developed "enormous goodwill". In support, it submits excerpts from its <etrade.com> website; examples of awards it has received, such as "Best for Mobile Trading" in Barron's Annual Online Broker Survey, February 2021 and "Best Robo-Advisor for Mobile Experience" in Investopia's 2020 Robo-Advisor Awards; news reports about Complainant and its services under the ETRADE marks from major news outlets, such as Newsday, the Los Angeles Times, SNL Financial Services Daily, and the Chicago Tribune; and a Google search for the terms "E*trade" and "finance", the results of which relate exclusively to Complainant. The Panel finds that this evidence supports Complainant's claim of brand reputation. It also notes Respondent's use of the disputed domain name for an impersonation website seeking sensitive login and personal information. Based on the submitted evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its marks at the time that it registered the disputed domain name. Next, the Complaint asserts that Respondent may be engaged in a phishing scheme based on harvesting the login and other sensitive personal information from existing or potential customers. This sets out claims for bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). 7-Eleven, Inc. v. li ming, FA 2218438 (Forum May 27, 2026) ("Through the misleading nature of the Respondent's Websites, visitors were invited to provide account login details (including e-mail and password) to the Respondent. Such conduct is best characterized as 'phishing'.") It also asserts that Respondent promotes related financial services in competition with Complainant to disrupt its business and is also seeking commercial gain based on confusion with Complainant's marks and this has also been cited as constituting bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Zapier, Inc. v. Manohar Chapalamadugu / Agile CRM Inc., FA 2049262 (Forum July 23, 2023) (where the disputed "domain name resolves to a website that purports to do exactly what Complainant does", the Panel found that Respondent is "using the disputed domain name to offer competing services under the same mark, and thus, attracting unsuspecting Zapier customers to its infringing website, and disrupting and damaging Zapier's business.") Here, as noted above, Complainant has provided screenshots of the website that resolves from the disputed domain name which conveys the impression that the site originates with Complainant while seeking to harvest login credential and other personal information, activity which is frequently used to facilitate phishing schemes. Complainant's assertion that the confusion created by the disputed domain name is enhanced by its use of the word "bot" which relates to online financial services of the type provided under the E*TRADE mark further supports its claim. By a preponderance of the evidence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith to compete with Complainant and target its marks under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (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 <etradebot.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Steven M. Levy, Panelist Dated: July 18, 2026 [1] The Panel notes that the submitted United States Trademark Registration Certificates list the trademark owner as "E*TRADE Securities, Inc." which is not a named Complainant in this case. No assignment records or other explanation were initially provided regarding the relationship of this entity to Complainant. In its Additional Statement, Complainant provided assignment evidence and corrected this oversight. However, this is evidence that was within the Complainant's possession and that could have been submitted with the Complaint. As such, the Panel is under no obligation to accept it but has elected to do so in an exercise of its discretion. Complainant's counsel is advised to include such assignment evidence in any future UDRP filings as some Panels may be inclined to exercise their discretion differently. 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.