Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Seltmann GmbH
Claim Number: FA2110001969562
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Diamond of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Seltmann GmbH (“Respondent”), Germany.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain name at issue are <blinkforhome.support>, <blink-for-home.ag>, <blinkforhome.biz>, <blink-for-home.biz>, <blinkforhome.blog>, <blink-for-home.camera>, <blinkforhome.center>, <blinkforhome.chat>, <blinkforhome.cloud>, <blinkforhome.co>, <blink-for-home.com>, <blinkforhome.download>, <blinkforhome.gmbh>, <blinkforhome.info>, <blink-for-home.info>, <blinkforhome.international>, <blinkforhome.mobi>, <blink-for-home.mobi>, <blink-for-home.net>, <blinkforhome.news>, <blinkforhome.online>, <blinkforhome.org>, <blink-for-home.org>, <blinkforhome.photos>, <blink-for-home.support>, <blinkforhome.systems>, <blinkforhome.team>, <blinkforhome.tel>, <blinkforhome.tv>, <blinkforhome.webcam>, <blinkforhome.wiki>, <blink-homesecurity.com>, and <blink-home-security.com>, registered with Mesh Digital Limited,; InterNetX GmbH; PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 18, 2021; the Forum received payment on October 18, 2021.
On October 20, 2021; October 27, 2021, Mesh Digital Limited,; InterNetX GmbH; PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blinkforhome.support>, <blink-for-home.ag>, <blinkforhome.biz>, <blink-for-home.biz>, <blinkforhome.blog>, <blink-for-home.camera>, <blinkforhome.center>, <blinkforhome.chat>, <blinkforhome.cloud>, <blinkforhome.co>, <blink-for-home.com>, <blinkforhome.download>, <blinkforhome.gmbh>, <blinkforhome.info>, <blink-for-home.info>, <blinkforhome.international>, <blinkforhome.mobi>, <blink-for-home.mobi>, <blink-for-home.net>, <blinkforhome.news>, <blinkforhome.online>, <blinkforhome.org>, <blink-for-home.org>, <blinkforhome.photos>, <blink-for-home.support>, <blinkforhome.systems>, <blinkforhome.team>, <blinkforhome.tel>, <blinkforhome.tv>, <blinkforhome.webcam>, <blinkforhome.wiki>, <blink-homesecurity.com>, and <blink-home-security.com> domain names are registered with Mesh Digital Limited,; InterNetX GmbH; PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Mesh Digital Limited,; InterNetX GmbH; PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot has verified that Respondent is bound by the Mesh Digital Limited,; InterNetX GmbH; PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot 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 November 1, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 22, 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@blinkforhome.support, postmaster@blink-for-home.ag, postmaster@blinkforhome.biz, postmaster@blink-for-home.biz, postmaster@blinkforhome.blog, postmaster@blink-for-home.camera, postmaster@blinkforhome.center, postmaster@blinkforhome.chat, postmaster@blinkforhome.cloud, postmaster@blinkforhome.co, postmaster@blink-for-home.com, postmaster@blinkforhome.download, postmaster@blinkforhome.gmbh, postmaster@blinkforhome.info, postmaster@blink-for-home.info, postmaster@blinkforhome.international, postmaster@blinkforhome.mobi, postmaster@blink-for-home.mobi, postmaster@blink-for-home.net, postmaster@blinkforhome.news, postmaster@blinkforhome.online, postmaster@blinkforhome.org, postmaster@blink-for-home.org, postmaster@blinkforhome.photos, postmaster@blink-for-home.support, postmaster@blinkforhome.systems, postmaster@blinkforhome.team, postmaster@blinkforhome.tel, postmaster@blinkforhome.tv, postmaster@blinkforhome.webcam, postmaster@blinkforhome.wiki, postmaster@blink-homesecurity.com, postmaster@blink-home-security.com. Also on November 1, 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 November 29, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it launched<amazon.com> in July 1995 and today is one of the world’s leading retailers, offering products and services to more than 100 countries around the globe. Complainant also operates the website <blinkforhome.com> and offers Blink-branded smart home security devices that are affordable, innovative, and easy-to-use. Armed with two-way audio, HD video, customizable motion detection, and more — Blink smart home security devices allow consumers to see, hear, and speak from the free Blink Home Monitor smartphone app. Complainant’s predecessor in interest introduced Blink in a 2014 Kickstarter campaign and began shipping Blink devices in 2015. Today, Blink battery-powered Outdoor and Indoor cameras and the Blink Mini plug-in cam help consumers protect what matters most no matter where they are. Blink devices and accessories can be purchased at the Blink store on <amazon.com>. Complainant provides free customer service and support for Blink devices via <support.blinkforhome>. Complainant uses the BLINK mark and logo and the AMAZON mark and logo to promote its Blink devices and services. Complainant claims rights in the mark BLINK through its registration in Japan in 2020 (application date June 18, 2018); and its registration in Singapore on June 18, 2018. Complainant registered its AMAZON mark in the United States in 2012; the mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its BLINK mark, as they incorporate the mark in its entirety and merely add the generic terms “for,” “home,” and “security” along with different generic top-level domain (“gTLDs”)
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the BLINK mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. Instead, the disputed domain names resolve to webpages that display Complainant’s BLINK mark and AMAZON marks and offer BLINK-branded products and services as well as third-party security products such as smoke detectors.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith as they resolve to webpages that display Complainant’s BLINK and AMAZON marks along with offers of BLINK-branded products and services as well as third-party security products such as smoke detectors. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark due to the longstanding use and fame of the mark in commerce.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has common law trademark rights in the mark BLINK, dating back to at least 2015, and uses it to market home security products.
The registration dates of the disputed domain names are:
|
blinkforhome.support |
June 16, 2016 |
|
blink-for-home.ag |
Feb. 16, 2017 |
|
blink-for-home.com |
Oct. 14, 2016 |
|
blinkforhome.info |
Dec. 2, 2016 |
|
blinkforhome.org |
Dec. 2, 2016 |
|
blink-homesecurity.com |
June 27, 2017 |
|
blink-home-security.com |
June 27, 2017 |
|
All other disputed domain names |
Feb. 14, 2017 |
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
The disputed domain names resolve to webpages that display Complainant’s BLINK and AMAZON marks and logos and offer BLINK-branded products and services as well as third-party security products.
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 disputed domain names were registered before Complainant acquired registered rights in the mark BLINK. However, common law rights are sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a trademark registration if a complainant can establish common law rights in its mark). Common law rights may be established through evidence of secondary meaning in the mark such as longstanding use, evidence of an identical domain name, media recognition, and promotional material and advertising. See Marquette Golf Club v. Al Perkins, 1738263 (Forum July 27, 2017) (finding that Complainant had established its common law rights in the MARQUETTE GOLF CLUB mark with evidence of secondary meaning, including “longstanding use; evidence of holding an identical domain name; media recognition; and promotional material/advertising.”).
According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:
Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.
This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.
Here, the Panel finds that Complainant’s predecessor in interest registered the domain name <blinkforhome.com> on June 23, 2014, and that it has been used since then to promote the Blink devices and related services, as shown by <www.archive.org>. Further, Complainant used its BLINK mark and logo mark in various promotional and advertising materials. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant established common law rights in its BLINK mark, with rights predating the first registration of the disputed domain names.
The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant’s BLINK mark in its entirety and merely add the generic terms “for”, “home”, “security”, hyphens and a gTLD. Such changes do not distinguish a domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the <starbucksreal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as “the addition of the generic term ‘real’ to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.”); see also Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. XINXIU ZENG / haimin liang, FA 1736365 (Forum July 19, 2017) (finding that the addition of punctuation—specifically, a hyphen—did not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from complainant’s registered mark); see also Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used 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 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 indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as “Seltmann GmbH”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain names resolve to webpages that display Complainant’s BLINK and AMAZON marks and logos and offer BLINK-branded products and services as well as third-party security products. Use of disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that displays a complainant’s mark and products and services related to the mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] 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).”), see also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving websites display Complainant’s BLINK and AMAZON marks and logos along with products and services related to the mark, as well as unrelated products. Use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that displays a complainant’s mark and offers similar products and services may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant’s business), see also Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to reference the complainant’s products and offer competitive and/or counterfeit products), see also BBY Solutions, Inc. v. Grant Ritzwoller, FA 1703389 (Forum Dec. 21, 2016) (finding bad faith because the <bestbuyus.com> domain name was obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known BEST BUY mark, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving websites display Complainant’s mark and logo, as well as images of Complainant’s products. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also 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.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes 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 <blinkforhome.support>, <blink-for-home.ag>, <blinkforhome.biz>, <blink-for-home.biz>, <blinkforhome.blog>, <blink-for-home.camera>, <blinkforhome.center>, <blinkforhome.chat>, <blinkforhome.cloud>, <blinkforhome.co>, <blink-for-home.com>, <blinkforhome.download>, <blinkforhome.gmbh>, <blinkforhome.info>, <blink-for-home.info>, <blinkforhome.international>, <blinkforhome.mobi>, <blink-for-home.mobi>, <blink-for-home.net>, <blinkforhome.news>, <blinkforhome.online>, <blinkforhome.org>, <blink-for-home.org>, <blinkforhome.photos>, <blink-for-home.support>, <blinkforhome.systems>, <blinkforhome.team>, <blinkforhome.tel>, <blinkforhome.tv>, <blinkforhome.webcam>, <blinkforhome.wiki>, <blink-homesecurity.com>, and <blink-home-security.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: November 29, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page