Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. M M / L H
Claim Number: FA2112001977752
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is M M / L H (“Respondent”), New Jersey, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bink-camera.com> and <blinkcamera-us.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 20, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 20, 2021.
On December 23, 2021, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <bink-camera.com> and <blinkcamera-us.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 27, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 18, 2022 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@bink-camera.com, postmaster@blinkcamera-us.shop. Also on December 27, 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 21, 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 name 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 nominal registrants’ names both comprise two capital letters separated by a space, “L H” and “M M.”
b) The disputed domain names were registered with the same registrar in a short timeframe (15 days).
c) Both disputed domains are nominally hosted with Cloudflare.
d) The disputed domains have both resolved to online retail stores that promote third-party cameras that compete with Complainant.
e) The disputed domains have substantially identical privacy and return policies.
f) The nominal registrant “M M” was previously found to use multiple aliases in a previous UDRP case
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are under common control as the resolving websites use common privacy and return policies, the domain names were registered in a short timeframe with the same registrar, and they use the same hosting agency. 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 also operates the website <ring.com> and offers Ring-branded cameras and home security products and services including the well-known Ring Doorbell. Launched in 2014, and named one of Time’s Top Gadgets that year, the Ring Doorbell streams live audio and video of a home’s front doorstep directly to a smartphone or tablet, allowing homeowners to answer the door from anywhere and get notified in real-time when visitors press the doorbell or trigger built-in motion sensors. Complainant also offers Ring Alarm which was named #1 in Customer Satisfaction for DIY Home Security Systems by J.D. Power in 2020. Complainant also offers Ring Security Cameras. Complainant has rights in the BLINK mark through its registration of the mark in Singapore in 2018. 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. The disputed domain name <blinkcamera-us.shop> incorporates Complainant’s BLINK trademark in its entirety and merely adds the descriptive term “camera”, a hyphen, the geographic term “US”, and the “.shop” gTLD. The disputed domain name <bink-camera.com> incorporates a misspelling of Complainant’s BLINK trademark that merely deletes the letter “L”, adds the descriptive term “camera,” a hyphen, and the “.com”. gTLD. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed 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. Instead, the disputed domain names initially resolved to webpages that displayed and offered competing products for sale. Subsequently, one of the disputed domain names was no longer used, while the other resolved to a web site that was reported to be used for phishing. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith as they resolved to webpages that displayed products that compete with Complainant’s business. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark due to the longstanding use and fame of the mark in commerce. 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 mark 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 offered for sale products that compete with those of Complainant.
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 name <blinkcamera-us.shop> incorporates Complainant’s BLINK trademark in its entirety and merely adds the descriptive term “camera”, a hyphen, the geographic term “US”, and the “.shop” gTLD. The disputed domain name <bink-camera.com> incorporates a misspelling of Complainant’s BLINK trademark that merely deletes the letter “L”, adds the term descriptive term “camera,” a hyphen, and the “.com”. gTLD (.com or .shop). Such changes do not distinguish the domain names from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg L.P. v. Baltic Consultants Ltd., FA0010000095834 (Forum Nov. 20, 2000) ("[t]he variation or addition of a single letter or generic word in Complainant's mark is precisely what the "Identical or Confusingly Similar" language of the [UDRP] envisions"); see also American Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA0404000257901 (Forum June 7, 2004) (“mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”); see also Hewlett-Packard Dev. Co. L.P. v. Surya Tech., FA0708001059665 (Forum Oct. 2, 2007) (“addition of a term that relates to the business in which Complainant engages and the addition of the gTLD are not sufficient to differentiate a domain name from a known mark”); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. personal, D2010-2190 (WIPO Feb 8, 2011) (adding the name of a product the Complainant markets to Complainant’s mark is “likely to compound the likelihood of confusion”); see also Dell Inc. v. Phrasaeng, FA1708001745812 (Forum Sept. 28, 2017) (“Adding geographical terms does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark to prevent a finding of confusingly similarity under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Microsoft Corp. v. The Private Whois Privacy Service, FA1302001484502 (Forum Mar. 24, 2013) (“addition of a hyphen or a top level domain name are never significant changes to a trademark under the Policy”). Thus 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: 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 “M M / L H”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain names resolved to webpages that displayed and offered third-party competitors’ products for sale. Use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a domain name that offers products and services that compete with a complainant and its 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 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 Panel finds that Respondent has failed 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 name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s marks. 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 displayed products that compete with Complainant’s business. Use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers products and services that compete with a complainant’s business and mark may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1506001623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); 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 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). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <bink-camera.com> and <blinkcamera-us.shop> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: January 21, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page