Morganstanpro.com

The timeline behind morganstanpro.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. sdfadf Claim Number: FA2607002232002 PARTIES Complainant is Morgan Stanley ("Complainant"), represented by Sarah Sue Landau of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, USA. Respondent is sdfadf ("Respondent"), Japan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <morganstanpro.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with Metaregistrar BV. 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. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 10, 2026; Forum received payment on July 10, 2026. On July 13, 2026, Metaregistrar BV confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <morganstanpro.com> domain name is registered with Metaregistrar BV and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Metaregistrar BV has verified that Respondent is bound by the Metaregistrar BV 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 July 15, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 4, 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@morganstanpro.com. Also on July 15, 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. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On August 5, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 offers a variety of financial, investment, and wealth management services under the MORGAN STANLEY mark in over 40 countries worldwide. Complainant owns rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 1,707,196, registered on Aug. 11, 1992). Respondent's <morganstanpro.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark, as it consists of a minor misspelling of the mark (omitting the "y") and adding the generic term "pro" (an abbreviation for "professional") and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <morganstanpro.com> domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the MORGAN STANLEY mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the Domain Name. Additionally, Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the Domain Name resolves to an inactive page, albeit on that displays the phrase "Japanese +US Stocks" in Chinese characters on the header tab. Respondent registered and uses the <morganstanpro.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name to resolve to an inactive website with the likely intention to later capitalize on user confusion with the Complainant. Respondent also had actual and constructive notice of Complainant's rights in the mark, evidenced by the notoriety of Complainant's mark and intention to use for competing services. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the MORGAN STANLEY mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 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 has rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark based on registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,707,196, registered Aug. 11, 1992). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO")."). The Panel finds that the <morganstanpro.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark as it consists of a minor misspelling of the MORGAN STANLEY mark (omitting the "y" and removing the space between the words) with the addition of the abbreviation "pro" and the gTLD ".com". Adding a generic abbreviation and the gTLD ".com" to a minor misspelling of a mark does not negate confusing similarity. See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("The [<morganstonley.com> and <morganstainley.com>] Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks, as they fully incorporate the MORGAN STANLEY mark, varying it only by subtle misspellings, omitting a space between the words, and adding the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") '.com.'"); see also Research Now Group, Inc. v. Pan Jing, FA 1735345 (Forum July 14, 2017) ("The … elimination of spacing [is] considered irrelevant when distinguishing between a mark and a domain name."); see also Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("Respondent merely adds the term 'supports' and a '.org' gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the MORGAN STANLEY mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists "sdfadf" as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Domain Name is inactive (it resolves to a blank page) and the only other evidence of an intention to use the Domain Name for any purpose (being the display of the phrase "Japanese +US Stocks" in Chinese characters on the header tab) does not amount to evidence of any intention to use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering or legitimate non-commercial use. In the absence of any additional evidence this inactive holding of a disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) ("Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, June 12, 2026, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark. The Complainant had, at the time of registration, used the MORGAN STANLEY mark for over 85 years and developed a significant global reputation in the mark. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that consists of a minor misspelling of the MORGAN STANLEY mark and an abbreviation ("pro") associated with Complainant other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the MORGAN STANLEY mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel notes that the actions of Respondent in this matter do not fall under the arguments set out in Policy ¶ 4(b). However, these arguments are merely illustrative rather than exclusive to support a finding of bad faith. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are mere illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent's bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances). It is well accepted that the elements of Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive and that a Panel may consider all of the circumstances of a given case, including passive holding, in making its bad faith analysis. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (after considering all the circumstances of a given case, it is possible that a "[r]espondent's passive holding amounts to bad faith."); Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) ("Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website."). Respondent has, without alternative explanation (or active use), registered a domain name that is very similar to the well-known MORGAN STANLEY mark. Furthermore, given the display of the phrase "Japanese +US Stocks" in Chinese characters on the header tab the only inference that can reasonably be drawn is that the Domain Name is being held pending use as a website that will seek to mislead or deceive customers who think they will be dealing with Complainant but will actually be dealing with Respondent when seeking to purchase financial instruments. Inactive holding of a domain name can be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and, after considering the totality of the circumstances (including the inherent nature of the Domain Name) and in the absence of any Response or other explanation for such inactivity by Respondent (or any possible good faith use of the Domain Name by Respondent), the Panel finds that this inactive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds 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 <morganstanpro.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: August 5, 2026 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.