Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Theresa Chavez
Claim Number: FA2106001952534
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Theresa Chavez (“Respondent”), Michigan, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ring-outlet.com>, registered with Dynadot, LLC.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 24, 2021; the Forum received payment on June 24, 2021.
On June 25, 2021, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ring-outlet.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, LLC 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 30, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 20, 2021 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@ring-outlet.com. Also on June 30, 2021, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 26, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Amazon Technologies, Inc. offers RING branded home security products and services.
Complainant has rights in the RING mark based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <ring-outlet.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RING mark because it incorporates the entire mark and simply adds a hyphen, the generic term “outlet,” and the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <ring-outlet.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use the RING mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the domain name to pass off as Complainant and engage in phishing.
Respondent registered and uses the <ring-outlet.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent engages in a pattern of bad faith registration and use. Respondent also uses the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant and to purport to offer competing goods for sale. Furthermore, Respondent engages in phishing. Respondent also provided false WHOIS information. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the RING mark based on its use of the mark and product images at the resolving website for the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the RING mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the RING trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to pose as Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
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:
(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”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of its RING mark with the USPTO demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant’s USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <ring-outlet.com> domain name consists of Complainant’s RING trademark followed by a hyphen and the generic term “outlet,” with all followed by the top-level domain name “.com.” Under the Policy the differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark do nothing to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <ring-outlet.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RING trademark. See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where “[t]he disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term ‘outlet’ to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the ‘.com’ top-level domain.”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for <ring-outlet.com> indicates that “Theresa Chavez” is the domain name’s registrant. There is nothing in the record before the Panel that indicates that Respondent is otherwise known by the <ring-outlet.com> domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
As discussed below regarding bad faith, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant in connection with a phishing scheme. Such use of the domain name in a is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent’s <ring-outlet.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present that compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent has previously registered a domain name laden with Complainant’s RING trademark under a different name and was found to have registered and used such domain name in bad faith. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Montemayor, FA2105001947542 (Forum June 18, 2021). Respondent’s current registration, in light of Respondent’s apparent history, suggests a pattern of bad faith domain name registration and use. Respondent’s pattern of domain name abuse indicates Respondent bad faith regarding the currently at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. zhangzongze / sweden / zhang jinxian / canada goose / harleydavidson / harley davidson, FA1410001587625 (Forum Dec. 10, 2014) (“The Panel agrees that the case relates to the same Respondent here, and Respondent’s history of bad faith suggests Respondent’s bad faith in the instant case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), especially given the presence of three domain names in this proceeding that incorporate the HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark.”).
Next, Respondent’s at-issue domain name addresses a website mimicking the look of Complainant’s genuine website and even displays Complainant’s RING logo. Respondent’s imposter website purports to offer goods for sale that are similar or perhaps identical to Complainant’s offerings. Respondent’s use of the at-issue domain name to offer competing or even the same goods or services offered by Complainant is evidence of bad faith disruption of Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and shows Respondent’s bad faith endeavor to attract internet users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Spark Networks PLC v. Houlihan, FA 653476 (Forum Apr. 18, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s registration of a domain name substantially similar to the complainant’s AMERICAN SINGLES mark in order to operate a competing online dating website supported a finding that respondent registered and used the domain name to disrupt the complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii));see also, Bittrex, Inc. v. Caroline Alves Maia, FA 1796113 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent used the disputed domain name to present users with a website that was “virtually identical, with the same color scheme, the same layout and the same substantive content” and used the website to gain access to users’ cryptocurrency accounts); see also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also, ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (Finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products).
Additionally, Respondent uses the <ring-outlet.com> domain name to facilitate a phishing scheme. Respondent capitalizes on the confusion caused by its <ring-outlet.com> domain name to trick internet users into believing that the domain name and its associated website are sponsored or authorized by Complainant when they are not. Respondent then exploits the misled internet traffic to further a phishing scheme aimed at fraudulently collecting passwords entered on a phony account login page ultimately addressed by the at-issue domain name. Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name to perpetrate fraud shows Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Finally, Respondent registered its <ring-outlet.com> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in RING. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s display of images of Complainant’s products, as well as Complainant’s RING trademark and logo, on the <ring-outlet.com> website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain name to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark demonstrates that Respondent registered and used its <ring-outlet.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"); see also Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Michael Bach, FA 1426668 (Forum Mar. 2, 2012) (“Although Complainant has not submitted evidence indicating actual knowledge by Respondent of its rights in the trademark, the Panel finds that, due to the fame of Complainant’s [VICTORIA’S SECRET] mark, Respondent had actual notice at the time of the domain name registration and therefore registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ring-outlet.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: July 27, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page