Morgan Stanley v. Meow

Most people have the impression that the legal system is very dry, oppressive and boring. Much of this derives from the at times tedious details and procedure that must be followed. Sometimes there are some very funny moments in court (I'd rather not talk about the first time I appeared in court- everyone was laughing), and other times judges and arbiters have a lot of fun with their written opinions. The opinion by the judge in the recent Da Vinci Code lawsuit contained a code of its own. I recall reading a case in law school about a house that was haunted, and it contained an absurd number of references to ghosts.

Why am I writing about this? Well, I just came across this gem, Morgan Stanley v. Meow. Honestly, that is the name of that decision. It involves cybersquatting of a domain name. Morgan Stanley petitioned for transfer of the domain mymorganstanleyplatinum.com, which had been registered by a Mr. Woods (actually, through his cat). Mr. Woods had registered some other domains comprising Morgan Stanley marks, and it appears he was able to keep the first domain name. In this case, because the domain was registered in the name of a cat, who couldn't actually register the domain name or properly instruct someone to do so, the domain name registration was held invalid.

The individual who wrote the decision, Richard Hill, certainly enjoyed himself while writing this. I applaud such efforts, because we should all amuse ourselves with our work. It makes it more exciting for ourselves, which then spreads to others. Quoting Mr. Hill:

Respondent maintains that it is a cat, that is, a well-known carnivorous quadruped which has long been domesticated. However, it is equally well-known that the common cat, whose scientific name is Felis domesticus, cannot speak or read or write. Thus, a common cat could not have submitted the Response (or even have registered the disputed domain name). Therefore, either Respondent is a different species of cat, such as the one that stars in the motion picture “Cat From Outer Space,” or Respondent’s assertion regarding its being a cat is incorrect.

If Respondent is in fact a cat from outer space, then it should have so indicated in its reply, in order to avoid unnecessary perplexity by the Panel. Further, it should have explained why a cat from outer space would allow Mr. Woods to use the disputed domain name. In the absence of such an explanation, the Panel must conclude that, if Respondent is a cat from outer space, then it may have something to hide, and this is indicative of bad faith behavior.

On the other hand, if Respondent’s assertion regarding its being a cat is incorrect, then Respondent has undoubtedly attempted to mislead this Panel and has provided incorrect WHOIS information. Such behavior is indicative of bad faith. See Video Direct Distribs. Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 5, 2000) (finding that the respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name); see also Quixtar Invs., Inc. v. Smithberger, D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000) (finding that use of false registration information constitutes bad faith).

Respondent cites Morgan Stanley v. Michael Woods, FA 604103 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2005), in which the Panel found that Complainant had failed to prove bad faith registration and use. But that case must be distinguished from the present case, because in that case the Respondent was Mr. Woods, and not a cat or someone who has misled the Panel by pretending to be a cat.

The Panel finds that Respondent’s assertions that it is a cat provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. And this despite the fact that the Panel, unlike Queen Victoria, is amused.

Thank you, Mr. Hill, for making me laugh out loud hysterically at work!