Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. hilbert hasudungan / 300domaincom
Claim Number: FA1908001858026
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is hilbert hasudungan / 300domaincom (“Respondent”), Indonesia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <amazonartificialintelligence.com>, <a-amazon.com>, <aamazonstore.com>, <amazon.property>, <amazonamazon.co>, <amazon-az.com>, <amazon-b.com>, <amazonbook.asia>, <amazonbook.xyz>, <amazonbusiness.app>, <amazonbusiness.asia>, <amazonco.net>, <amazonebooks.app>, <amazonebooks.asia>, <amazonebooks.shop>, <amazonebooks.store>, <amazongames.net>, <amazon-go.shop>, <amazon-go.shopping>, <amazon-go.store>, <amazongobooks.com>, <amazonkaraoke.com>, <amazon-kiosk.com>, <amazon-kiosks.com>, <amazonlookup.com>, <amazonmusic.app>, <amazonmusics.com>, <amazonnewspaper.com>, <amazonnewspapers.com>, <amazonoutfit.com>, <amazonoutfits.com>, <amazonsearching.com>, <amazonstore.app>, <amazontube.app>, <amazontubes.com>, <amazonvideo.app>, <amazonvideos.app>, <awsdot.com>, <awsdotcom.com>, <theamazonbooks.com>, <co-amazon.com>, <eamazonbooks.com>, <eamazonshop.com> and <https-amazon.com>, registered with CV. Rumahweb Indonesia; Web Commerce Comm. Ltd. dba WebNic.cc; ; PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and to the best of his knowledge has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 19, 2019; the Forum received payment on August 19, 2019.
On August 20, 2019; August 21, 2019; September 22, 2019, CV. Rumahweb Indonesia; Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc; PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <theamazonbooks.com>, <a-amazon.com>, <aamazonstore.com>, <amazon.property>, <amazonamazon.co>, <amazon-az.com>, <amazon-b.com>, <amazonbook.asia>, <amazonbook.xyz>, <amazonco.net>, <amazonbusiness.app>, <amazonbusiness.asia>, <amazonebooks.app>, <amazonebooks.asia>, <amazonebooks.shop>, <amazonebooks.store>, <amazongames.net>, <amazon-go.shop>, <amazon-go.shopping>, <amazon-go.store>, <amazongobooks.com>, <amazonkaraoke.com>, <amazon-kiosk.com>, <amazon-kiosks.com>, <amazonlookup.com>, <amazonmusic.app>, <amazonmusics.com>, <amazonnewspaper.com>, <amazonnewspapers.com>, <amazonoutfit.com>, <amazonoutfits.com>, <amazonsearching.com>, <amazonstore.app>, <amazontube.app>, <amazontubes.com>, <amazonvideo.app>, <amazonvideos.app>, <awsdot.com>, <awsdotcom.com>, <eamazonbooks.com>, <co-amazon.com>, <eamazonshop.com>, <https-amazon.com> and <amazonartificialintelligence.com> domain names are registered with CV. Rumahweb Indonesia; Web Commerce Communications Limited d/b/a WebNic.cc; ; PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. CV. Rumahweb Indonesia; Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc; ; PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the CV. Rumahweb Indonesia; Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc; ; PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 September 25, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 15, 2019 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@a-amazon.com, postmaster@aamazonstore.com, postmaster@amazon.property, postmaster@amazonamazon.co, postmaster@amazon-az.com, postmaster@amazonartificialintelligence.com, postmaster@amazon-b.com, postmaster@amazonbook.asia, postmaster@amazonbook.xyz, postmaster@amazonbusiness.app, postmaster@amazonbusiness.asia, postmaster@amazonco.net, postmaster@amazonebooks.app, postmaster@amazonebooks.asia, postmaster@amazonebooks.shop, postmaster@amazonebooks.store, postmaster@amazongames.net, postmaster@amazon-go.shop, postmaster@amazon-go.shopping, postmaster@amazon-go.store, postmaster@amazongobooks.com, postmaster@amazonkaraoke.com, postmaster@amazon-kiosk.com, postmaster@amazon-kiosks.com, postmaster@amazonlookup.com, postmaster@amazonmusic.app, postmaster@amazonmusics.com, postmaster@amazonnewspaper.com, postmaster@amazonnewspapers.com, postmaster@amazonoutfit.com, postmaster@amazonoutfits.com, postmaster@amazonsearching.com, postmaster@amazonstore.app, postmaster@amazontube.app, postmaster@amazontubes.com, postmaster@amazonvideo.app, postmaster@amazonvideos.app, postmaster@awsdot.com, postmaster@awsdotcom.com, postmaster@co-amazon.com, postmaster@eamazonbooks.com, postmaster@https-amazon.com, postmaster@theamazonbooks.com, and also to the attention of postmaster@eamazonshop.com. Also, on September 25, 2019, 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, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 26, 2019.
On September 26, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, operating under the marks AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, AMAZON GO and AWS, is one of the world’s leading online retailers, offering products and services to more than one hundred (100) countries around the world.
Complainant holds a registration for the service mark AMAZON, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 2,832,943, registered April 13, 2004, renewed as of April 21, 2014.
Complainant holds a registration for the service mark AMAZON.COM, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 2,837,138, registered April 27, 2004, renewed as of April 21, 2014.
Complainant holds a registration for the trade mark AMAZON GO, which is on file with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) as Registry No. 016130585, registered April 6, 2017.
Complainant holds a registration for the service mark AWS, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 3,576,161, registered February 17, 2009, renewed as of November 7, 2018.
Respondent registered these domain names on the dates indicated for each:
|
<a-amazon.com> |
June 20, 2019 |
|
<aamazonstore.com> |
July 29, 2019 |
|
<amazon.property> |
November 6, 2018 |
|
<amazonamazon.co> |
July 21, 2019 |
|
<amazonartificialintelligence.com> |
June 26, 2019 |
|
<amazon-az.com> |
July 9, 2019 |
|
<amazon-b.com> |
August 12, 2019 |
|
<amazonbook.asia> |
August 9, 2019 |
|
<amazonbook.xyz> |
August 9, 2019 |
|
<amazonbusiness.app> |
August 14, 2019 |
|
<amazonbusiness.asia> |
August 11, 2019 |
|
<amazonco.net> |
July 23, 2019 |
|
<amazonebooks.app> |
August 14, 2019 |
|
<amazonebooks.asia> |
August 2, 2019 |
|
<amazonebooks.shop> |
August 2, 2019 |
|
<amazonebooks.store> |
August 2, 2019 |
|
<amazongames.net> |
July 8, 2019 |
|
<amazon-go.shop> |
June 13, 2019 |
|
<amazon-go.shopping> |
June 13, 2019 |
|
<amazon-go.store> |
June 13, 2019 |
|
<amazongobooks.com> |
July 20, 2019 |
|
<amazonkaraoke.com> |
May 28, 2019 |
|
<amazon-kiosk.com> |
May 23, 2019 |
|
<amazon-kiosks.com> |
May 23, 2019 |
|
<amazonlookup.com> |
July 18, 2019 |
|
<amazonmusic.app> |
August 14, 2019 |
|
<amazonmusics.com> |
June 26, 2019 |
|
<amazonnewspaper.com> |
June 27, 2019 |
|
<amazonnewspapers.com> |
June 27, 2019 |
|
<amazonoutfit.com> |
May 30, 2019 |
|
<amazonoutfits.com> |
May 30, 2019 |
|
<amazonsearching.com> |
May 24, 2019 |
|
<amazonstore.app> |
August 14, 2019 |
|
<amazontube.app> |
August 14, 2019 |
|
<amazontubes.com> |
June 18, 2019 |
|
<amazonvideo.app> |
August 14, 2019 |
|
<amazonvideos.app> |
August 14, 2019 |
|
<awsdot.com> |
June 26, 2019 |
|
<awsdotcom.com> |
June 26, 2019 |
|
<co-amazon.com> |
July 2, 2019 |
|
<eamazonbooks.com> |
July 10, 2019 |
|
<eamazonshop.com> |
July 7, 2019 |
|
<https-amazon.com> |
May 22, 2019 |
|
<theamazonbooks.com> |
July 29, 2019 |
Each of the domain names is either or both substantively identical and confusingly similar to one or more of Complainant’s identified marks.
Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use any of Complainant’s AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, AMAZON GO or AWS marks.
Respondent has not been commonly known by any of the domain names.
Respondent fails to use the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Rather, Respondent uses the <amazon.property> domain name to list the other domain names for sale for prices between $600.00-$1,000.00 each.
The remaining domain names resolve to inactive websites.
Respondent has corresponded with Complainant on several occasions to offer six of the domain names containing the AMAZON mark for $1,000.00 each.
Respondent registered the domain names with the sole intent of selling them to Complainant or others for prices of up to $1,000.00 each.
Respondent has neither any rights to nor any legitimate interests in the domain names.
Respondent demonstrates a pattern of bad faith by the sheer number of domain names that incorporate Complainant’s AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, AMAZON GO and AWS marks.
Respondent has also demonstrated a pattern of bad faith by registering domain names incorporating third-party marks, including 21st CENTURY FOX, FACEBOOK, WALMART and WHATSAPP.
Respondent has also engaged in typo-squatting in the creation of several of the domain names.
Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, AMAZON GO and AWS marks when registering the domain names.
Respondent registered and uses each of the domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent registered the disputed domain names because they incorporate the term “Amazon,” a world-famous river in Brazil.
Respondent offered to sell the domain names to Complainant with good intentions in order to help its business.
(1) the domain names registered by Respondent are either or both identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of any of the domain names; and
(3) the same domain names were registered and are being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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:
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Complainant has rights in the AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, AMAZON GO and AWS marks by reason of its registration of those marks with national trademark authorities, the USPTO and EUIPO. See, for example, Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish a UDRP complainant’s rights in a mark). Similarly, see Sanlam Life Insurance Limited v. Syed Hussain, FA 1787219 (Forum June 15, 2018):
Registration of a mark with the EUIPO, a government agency, sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i).
This is true without regard to whether Complainant’s rights in its mark arise from registration of the mark in a jurisdiction (here the United States and the European Union) other than that in which Respondent resides or does business (here Indonesia). See, for example, W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1334458 (Forum August 24, 2010):
[T]he Panel finds that USPTO registration is sufficient to establish these [Policy¶4(a)(i)] rights even when Respondent lives or operates in a different country.
Turning to the central question posed by Policy¶4(a)(i), we conclude from a review of the record that all of Respondent’s challenged domain names are either or both substantively identical or confusingly similar to one of another of Complainant’s AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, AMAZON GO and AWS marks. For ease of reference, we consider them in turn and in compatible groups.
We first examine the only domain names that include the mark AWS: <awsdot.com> and <awsdotcom.com>. Each of these domain names incorporates the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” and the redundant text “dot” or “dotcom.” These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain names, do not save them from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy. See, for example, Isleworth Land Co. v. Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Forum September 27, 2002):
[I]t is a well-established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.
This is because every domain name requires a gTLD or other TLD. And, because inclusion of a gTLD in the domain names is of no consequence to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis, a repetition of the same matter in each of them does not change the outcome.
We next consider those domain names that implicate the mark AMAZON GO. These are: <amazon-go.shop>, <amazon-go.shopping>, <amazon-go.store>, and <amazongobooks.com>. Each of these domain names incorporates the AMAZON GO mark in its entirety and each adds a gTLD. Their treatment under the Policy is therefore the same as with the domain names incorporating the mark AWS, described above, and with the same result. Three of the domain names include a dash (-) between the terms of the mark. This is of no effect in determining identity or confusing similarity. See, for example, Guinness UDV North America, Inc. v. UKJENT, D2001-0684 (WIPO August 9, 2001):
The addition of dashes between the letters of a single word does not alter the way the Domain Name is pronounced and cannot, in context, differentiate it from the same word absent the dashes.
The domain names associated with the mark AMAZON are these:
<amazon.property>, <amazonamazon.co>, <amazonbook.asia>, <amazonbook.xyz>, <amazonbusiness.app>, <amazonbusiness.asia>, <amazonco.net>, <amazonebooks.app>, <amazonebooks.asia>, <amazonebooks.shop>, <amazonebooks.store>, <amazongames.net>, <amazonmusic.app>, <amazonstore.app>, <amazontube.app>, <amazonvideo.app> and <amazonvideos.app>. Each of these domain names has a gTLD appended to the mark, which, as previously indicated, has no effect on our analysis. Each of them also has inserted before the gTLD a generic term. Because these inclusions can be taken to relate to various aspects of Complainant’s business, they have the effect of substantiating a conclusion of confusing similarity for these domain names. See, for example,
Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne-Zone, D2000-1809 (WIPO February 22, 2001):
… [T]he salient feature of the Domain Names[] is identical to a mark in which Complainant has shown prior rights. The addition of the generic term, … is not a distinguishing feature, and in this case seems to increase the likelihood of confusion because it is an apt term for Complainant’s business.
The domain names remaining for examination are those associated with the mark AMAZON.COM. They are: <amazonartificialintelligence.com>, <amazonkaraoke.com>, <amazonoutfits.com>, <a-amazon.com>, <aamazonstore.com>, <amazon-az.com>, <amazon-kiosks.com>, <amazonlookup.com>, <amazonmusics.com>, <amazon-b.com>, <amazonnewspaper.com>, <co-amazon.com>, <amazontubes.com>, <amazonnewspapers.com>, <amazonoutfit.com>, <amazon-kiosk.com>, <https-amazon.com>, <amazonsearching.com>, <eamazonbooks.com>, <eamazonshop.com> and <theamazonbooks.com>. Several of these domain names have included dashes, the discussion of which need not be repeated. The same is true of the inclusion of generic terms with evident relevance to various aspects of Complainant’s business. It only remains to note that the inclusion of random letters, such as “a” or “az” or “b” or “co” or “e” in several of the domain names does nothing to alter the overall impression left by the presence of AMAZON.COM in each of them. As a result, each must be found to be confusingly similar to the referenced mark. On the point, see Expedia, Inc. v. Grand Slam Co., FA 1361168 (Forum January 13, 2011) (finding the domain name <wexpedia.com> confusingly similar to the mark EXPEDIA); and see Wells Fargo & Co. v. Alvaro Collazo, FA 373882 (Forum January 19, 2005) (finding the domain name <qwellsfargo.com> confusingly similar to the mark WELLS FARGO).
Under Policy ¶4(a)(ii), Complainant must make out a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the challenged domain names, whereupon the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum August 18, 2006) (finding that a UDRP complainant must make a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under UDRP¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to that respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests). See also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum September 25, 2006):
Complainant must … 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, … the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.
Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie showing under this head of the Policy. Specifically, Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the any of the contested domain names, and that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use any of the AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, AMAZON GO or AWS marks. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of each of the domain names only as “hilbert hasudungan / 300domaincom,” which does not resemble any of the domain names. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain names so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in them within the ambit of Policy ¶4(c)(ii). See, for example, Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum September 4, 2018) (concluding that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name incorporating the GOOGLE mark where the relevant WHOIS record identified that respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and nothing in the record showed that that respondent was authorized to use a UDRP Complainant’s mark in any manner). See also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding, under Policy ¶4(c)(ii), that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name where a UDRP complainant had not authorized that respondent to incorporate its mark in a domain name).
We next observe that Complainant asserts, without objection from Respondent, that Respondent makes no active use of any of the domain names <a-amazon.com>, <aamazonstore.com>, <amazonamazon.co>, <amazonartificialintelligence.com>, <amazon-az.com>, <amazon-b.com>, <amazonbook.asia>, <amazonbook.xyz>, <amazonco.net>, <amazonbusiness.app>, <amazonbusiness.asia>, <amazonebooks.app>, <amazonebooks.asia>, <amazonebooks.shop>, <amazonebooks.store>, <amazongames.net>, <amazon-go.shop>, <amazon-go.shopping>, <amazon-go.store>, <amazongobooks.com>, <amazonkaraoke.com>, <amazon-kiosk.com>, <amazon-kiosks.com>, <amazonlookup.com>, <amazonmusic.app>, <amazonmusics.com>, <amazonnewspaper.com>, <amazonnewspapers.com>, <amazonoutfit.com>, <amazonoutfits.com>, <amazonsearching.com>, <amazonstore.app>, <amazontube.app>, <amazontubes.com>, <amazonvideo.app>, <amazonvideos.app>, <awsdot.com>, <awsdotcom.com>, <theamazonbooks.com>, <co-amazon.com>, <eamazonbooks.com>, <eamazonshop.com> and <https-amazon.com>. Its failure to employ any of these forty-three (43) domain names constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of them under Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of them under Policy ¶4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names as provided in those subsections of the Policy. See, for example, George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Forum April 25, 2007) (finding that a respondent had no rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶4(c)(i) or Policy ¶4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name).
Respondent seeks to counter Complainant’s assertions on the point of rights in the domain names with the contention that Respondent registered them because they incorporate the term “Amazon,” the name of a world-famous river in Brazil. Respondent’s assertion of a watercourse frame of reference is palpably specious in light of its insertion in the domain names of such terms as “store,” “book,” “business,” “kiosk,” “video,” “searching,” “newspaper,” “outfit,” “lookup” and “shop,” all plain references to merchandising and, especially, various aspects of the business of Complainant.
Complainant further asserts, again without objection from Respondent, that Respondent uses a webpage resolving from the <amazon.property> domain name exclusively to offer the other domain names for sale, and that Respondent has made direct offers to sell them to Complainant. Respondent specifically admits the latter point. This behavior further indicates that Respondent has neither rights to nor legitimate interests in any of the domain names as provided in either Policy ¶4(c)(i) or Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See, for example, 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA 1725052 (Forum May 9, 2017) (finding, under Policy ¶4(c)(i) and ¶4(c)(iii), that “a general offer for sale… provides additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests” in a disputed domain name).
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the proof requirements of Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s efforts to sell forty-three (43) commercially-oriented domain names, each of them tailored by Respondent in greater or less degree to the business of Complainant, is strongly indicative of Respondent’s bad faith in registering and using the domain names, including the forty-fourth domain name, which it employs exclusively in service of those marketing efforts. Respondent seeks to meet Complainant’s allegations with the suggestion that Respondent offered to sell the domain names to Complainant with good intentions in order to help its business. But Respondent’s attempt to encourage Complainant to part with tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for the domain names suggests a motive other than altruism. We therefore take the evidence as demonstrating convincingly that Respondent has both registered and used all of the domain names in bad faith. See, for example, Citigroup Inc. v. Kevin Goodman, FA1623939 (Forum July 11, 2015) (finding that a respondent registered a disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of transferring it for profit, thus demonstrating that respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name). See also Pocatello Idaho Auditorium Dist. v. CES Mktg. Group, Inc., FA 103186 (Forum February 21, 2002):
[w]hat makes an offer to sell a domain [name] bad faith is some accompanying evidence that the domain name was registered because of its value that is in some way dependent on the trademark of another, and then an offer to sell it to the trademark owner or a competitor of the trademark owner.
We are also persuaded by the evidence that Respondent knew of both Complainant and its rights in the AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, AMAZON GO, and AWS marks when it registered the challenged domain names. This further illustrates Respondent’s bad faith in registering them. See, for example, Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum February 6, 2014):
The Panel … here finds actual knowledge [of a UDRP complainant’s rights in a mark employed in a domain name, and therefore bad faith in registering it] through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.
The Panel thus finds that Complainant has met its obligations of proof under Policy¶4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be, and it is hereby, GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain names <a-amazon.com>, <aamazonstore.com>, <amazon.property>, <amazonamazon.co>, <amazonartificialintelligence.com>, <amazon-az.com>, <amazon-b.com>, <amazonbook.asia>, <amazonbook.xyz>, <amazonco.net>, <amazonbusiness.app>, <amazonbusiness.asia>, <amazonebooks.app>, <amazonebooks.asia>, <amazonebooks.shop>, <amazonebooks.store>, <amazongames.net>, <amazon-go.shop>, <amazon-go.shopping>, <amazon-go.store>, <amazongobooks.com>, <amazonkaraoke.com>, <amazon-kiosk.com>, <amazon-kiosks.com>, <amazonlookup.com>, <amazonmusic.app>, <amazonmusics.com>, <amazonnewspaper.com>, <amazonnewspapers.com>, <amazonoutfit.com>, <amazonoutfits.com>, <amazonsearching.com>, <amazonstore.app>, <amazontube.app>, <amazontubes.com>, <amazonvideo.app>, <amazonvideos.app>, <awsdot.com>, <awsdotcom.com>, <theamazonbooks.com>, <co-amazon.com>, <eamazonbooks.com>, <eamazonshop.com> and <https-amazon.com> be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: October 10, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page