Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. shanwang chen / feifei lin / Yolanda Hardin / Miguel K. Donovan / G H
Claim Number: FA2112001975431
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is shanwang chen / feifei lin / Yolanda Hardin / Miguel K. Donovan / G H (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <blink-cameras.store>, <blink-cameras.top>, <blink-deals.one>, <blink-sale.shop>, <blink-sales.store>, <blink-us.shop> and <blink-usadeals.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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 1, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 1, 2021.
On December 3, 2021, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blink-cameras.store>, <blink-cameras.top>, <blink-deals.one>, <blink-sale.shop>, <blink-sales.store>, <blink-us.shop> and <blink-usadeals.shop> domain names are registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 December 7, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 27, 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@blink-cameras.store, postmaster@blink-cameras.top, postmaster@blink-deals.one, postmaster@blink-sale.shop, postmaster@blink-sales.store, postmaster@blink-us.shop, postmaster@blink-usadeals.shop. Also on December 7, 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 January 3, 2022, 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.
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 several 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.”
Complainant submits that these domains are owned by the same individual or entity for at least the following reasons:
a) The domains all combine Complainant’s BLINK trademark with terms associated with Complainant’s location or business.
b) The domains were all registered with the same registrar (Dynadot) and using the same nominal host (Cloudflare) within 4 days of each other (from November 16 to November 19, 2021).
c) The domain names resolve to substantially similar websites (having substantially identical login pages.
d) The nominal owners for <blink-cameras.store> and <blink-cameras.top> are the same.
e) The nominal owners for <blink-sale.shop> and <blink-us.shop> are the same.
f) Respondent is the same individual or entity found to have used multiple aliases to register dozens of BLINK domain names for substantially identical websites.
The Panel finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to establish that the disputed domain names were registered by the same domain name holder. See The Valspar Corporation v. Zhou Zhiliang / zhouzhiliang / Zhiliang Zhou / Eric Chow / Visspa Ltd., FA100800133934 (Forum Sept. 28, 2010); see also BBY Solutions, Inc. v. White Apple / Dev Kumar, FA1805001787251 (Forum June 20, 2018).
Consequently, the Panel will rule on all the disputed domain names. Hereafter, those domain names are collectively referred to as “the disputed domain names”, and the registrants are collectively referred to as “Respondent”.
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 cameras and 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 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. Complainant has rights in the BLINK mark through its registrations with various trademark agencies around the world, dating back to 2018.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its BLINK mark as they incorporate the mark in its entirety along with a variety of generic/descriptive terms, hyphens, and generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its BLINK mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offerings of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair uses, but instead offers unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods, and also phishes for user information. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent has exhibited a pattern of bad faith registration and use. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names for bad faith disruption for commercial gain by offering either Complainant’s goods without authorization, or counterfeit goods. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark. Respondent phishes for user information. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns rights in the mark BLINK and uses it to market home security devices.
Complainant’s rights in its marks date back to 2018.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain names were registered in 2021.
The resolving websites pass off as Complainant and purport to offer for sale unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products; they also phish for user’s personal information.
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.
The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant’s BLINK mark in its entirety, merely adding a variety of descriptive/generic terms (such as “cameras”, “deals”, “sale” and “sales”, “us” and “usa”, “deals”), hyphens, and the “.store”, “.top”, “.one”, and “.shop” generic top level domains (gTLDs). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding generic, descriptive, and generic words, along with a hyphen and gTLD are all generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy). Therefore if the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) (“Here, the WHOIS information lists “er nong wu” as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). Here, the WHOIS of record identifies the registrants as “shanwang chen”, “feifei lin”, “Yolanda Hardin”, “Miguel K Donovan”, and “G H”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain names to pass off as Complainant to sell unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products and to phish for users’ personal information. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to pass off as a Complainant and sell complainant’s goods without authorization or counterfeit goods, as well as phishing for user information are generally not considered bona fide offerings of goods or services, nor legitimate noncommercial or fair uses. See Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant’s MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization); see also United States Postal Service v. Kehinde Okunola / Genuine ICT Centre, FA 1785420 (Forum June 6, 2018) (“Respondent uses the <uspscouriers.com> domain name both to sell services competing with the business of Complainant and to phish for personal identification information from Internet users. Neither of these uses of the domain name constitutes a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy.”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under 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 purport to offer unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv), offering Complainant’s goods without authorization or counterfeit goods is generally considered evidence of bad faith registration and use. See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Cox-2 Vioxx.com, FA 124508 (Forum Oct. 16, 2002) (“Unauthorized use of Complainant’s CELEBREX mark to sell Complainant’s products represents bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) (“Respondent’s primary offering seem to be counterfeits of Complainant’s toy car products. Respondent’s use of the <magictrackscars.com> domain name is thus disruptive to Complainant’s business per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)”); see additionally Fanuc Ltd v. Mach. Control Servs., FA 93667 (Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark by using a domain name identical to the complainant’s mark to sell the complainant’s products); Affliction, Inc. v. Chinasupply, FA 1223521 (Forum Oct. 23, 2008) (finding that the respondent attempts to commercially gain and thus demonstrating bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating confusion as to the complainant’s connection with the website by selling counterfeit products). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Further, also as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to phish for user information. Phishing for user information is generally considered evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1506001622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing’ scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
In addition, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving websites display Complainant’s mark and logo. 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).
Finally, Respondent displays a pattern of bad faith registration of disputed domain names containing Complainant’s marks by registering the seven disputed domain names. Registration of multiple domain names containing a complainant’s mark can substantiate an argument that a respondent registered and uses a disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See NIKE, Inc., and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Emile Boulanger, FA 1732458 (Forum July 3, 2017) (finding that registration of several infringing domain names in a case satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Angie Arendt / DIAHOST .CO / keith mosley, FA1805001789701 (Forum July 2, 2018) (finding that Respondent engaged in a pattern of bad faith and registration by registering multiple domain names that contain Complainant’s famous CATERPILLAR mark); see also Radisson Hotels Internation, Inc. v. Yue Mei Wang / Wang Yue Mei aka Pei Jun Gan / Gan Pei Jun / Jun Yu He / He Jun Yu / Denliyan, FA1504001615349 (Forum June 1, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s registration of the <radissonbluplazachongqing.com>, <radissonbluchongqingshapingba.com>, <radissonplazahoteltianjin.com>, and <radissonbluhotelshanghai.com> domain names, which all infringe on Complainant’s mark, constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blink-cameras.store>, <blink-cameras.top>, <blink-deals.one>, <blink-sale.shop>, <blink-sales.store>, <blink-us.shop> and <blink-usadeals.shop> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: January 4, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page