Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Le tie / Good Guys / shanwang chen
Claim Number: FA2111001972152
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Le tie / Good Guys / shanwang chen ("Respondent"), United States and China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <ringcamera.shop> and <bestblinkcameras.shop>, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 5, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 5, 2021.
On November 8, 2021, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <ringcamera.shop> and <bestblinkcameras.shop> domain names are registered with Dynadot, LLC; that shanwang chen is the current registrant of <ringcamera.shop>; and that Le tie / Good Guys is the current registrant of <bestblinkcameras.shop>. 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 November 9, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 29, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ringcamera.shop, postmaster@bestblinkcameras.shop. Also on November 9, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 December 6, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under multiple aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."
There are several factors that are normally considered when a complainant is filed against multiple respondents:
[P]anels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario.
Panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants’ identity(ies) including pseudonyms, (ii) the registrants’ contact information including email address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities, (iii) relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s), (iv) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (v) the nature of the marks at issue (e.g., where a registrant targets a specific sector), (vi) any naming patterns in the disputed domain names (e.g., <mark-country> or <mark-goods>), (vii) the relevant language/scripts of the disputed domain names particularly where they are the same as the mark(s) at issue, (viii) any changes by the respondent relating to any of the above items following communications regarding the disputed domain name(s), (ix) any evidence of respondent affiliation with respect to the ability to control the disputed domain name(s), (x) any (prior) pattern of similar respondent behavior, or (xi) other arguments made by the complainant and/or disclosures by the respondent(s).
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.11 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/.
Complainant asserts that the identities under which the disputed domain names are registered are aliases for a single entity, noting (among other commonalities) that they resolve to similar websites, both of which identify the owner as "Bestblinkcameras Cameras & Accessories BV" and one of which includes references to the other domain name; that the domain names were registered with the same registrar within six weeks of one another and use the same nominal host; and that the registrant information for <bestblinkcameras.shop> includes an invalid physical address, suggesting that the information is partially or entirely fictitious. The Panel also notes that notice of this proceeding has been transmitted via email, post, and fax to the addresses and phone numbers listed on both domain name registrations, and that no objection has been received to Complainant's request that the registrants of the disputed domain names be treated as a single entity for purposes of this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are under common control, and that it is therefore appropriate under Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules to include them in a single proceeding under the Policy.
A. Complainant
Complainant is one of the world's largest online retailers. Complainant and its predecessors in interest have offered cameras and home security products and services under the RING and BLINK marks since 2014. Complainant owns trademark registrations for RING and BLINK in standard character form and otherwise in various jurisdictions, including multiple United States trademark registrations for RING and registrations for BLINK in Japan, Singapore, and Switzerland.
Respondent registered the disputed domain names <bestblinkcameras.shop> and <ringcamera.shop> in September and November 2021, respectively. The domain names resolve to online stores branded BESTBLINKCAMERAS and RINGCAMERA which promote third-party products that include competing cameras. The websites do not include any statements disclaiming a relationship between Respondent and Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, is not affiliated with Complainant, and has not been licensed to use Complainant's marks.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain names <ringcamera.shop> and <bestblinkcameras.shop> are confusingly similar to its RING and BLINK marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used 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:
(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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, supra, § 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <ringcamera.shop> incorporates Complainant's registered RING trademark, adding the generic term "camera" (which refers to a product for which Complainant uses the mark) and the ".shop" top-level domain. The disputed domain name <bestblinkcameras.shop> similarly incorporates Complainant's registered BLINK trademark, adding the generic terms "best" and "cameras" and the ".shop" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's marks. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. azu seedorf / Cleveles Mary / Glova Karl / Nitsch Weiser / Jim Lee / M M / Ony Onv / James P. Biddle, FA 1963698 (Forum Oct. 15, 2021) (finding <blink-cameras.shop> confusingly similar to BLINK); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suresh Williams / AST, FA 1964183 (Forum Oct. 14, 2021) (finding <ring-camera.com> confusingly similar to RING). The Panel considers each of the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Each of the disputed domain name incorporates one of Complainant's registered marks without authorization. The domain names are being used for misleading websites that attempt to pass off as Complainant for the purposes of promoting products or services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Fateh Singh, FA 1970934 (Forum Nov. 29, 2021) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered marks without authorization, and they are being used for misleading websites that attempt to pass off as Complainant for the purposes of promoting products or services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Fateh Singh, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ringcamera.shop> and <bestblinkcameras.shop> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: December 6, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page