Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Manpreet Kaur
Claim Number: FA2204001993752
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Manpreet Kaur (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ringcamera.live>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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 April 26, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 26, 2022.
On April 26, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ringcamera.live> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 April 27, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 17, 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@ringcamera.live. Also on April 27, 2022, 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. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below.
On May 24, 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: IDENTITY THEFT
Respondent contends that it has been the victim of identity theft, see below. As the Forum did not receive any further response from the named Respondent, it proceeded with the Panel appointment. The Panel has taken the following rules and precedent into account in making a determination on not redacting Respondent’s identity.
According to Policy ¶ 4(j), “[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.” In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005), the panels omitted the respondents’ personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft from becoming aligned with acts the actual registrants appeared to have sought to impute to the respondents.).
However, according to Forum Supplemental Rule 15(b), “All requests pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j) and Rule 16(b) to have a portion of the decision redacted, must be made in the Complaint, the Response, or an Additional Submission that is submitted before the Panel’s decision is published.” (emphasis added). Rule 1 defines “respondent” as “the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated;” and Forum Supplemental Rule 1(d) further defines “the holder of a domain-name registration” as “the single person or entity listed in the WHOIS registration information at the time of commencement.” The Panel notes precedent which holds the registrar-confirmed registrant of a disputed domain (per the WHOIS at commencement of the proceeding) the proper respondent, notwithstanding the possibility that said respondent’s identity was stolen. See, e.g., Banco Bradesco S/A v. Gisele Moura Leite, D2014-0414 (WIPO Apr. 30, 2014).
In the instant case, there has been no request in the Complaint to redact any portion of the decision, nor has there been a Response or an Additional Submission. Consequently, the Panel finds that it is not warranted to redact Respondent’s name and location from the Panel’s decision.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it operates the website <ring.com> and offers Ring-branded 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. The Ring Doorbell installs in minutes, with no professional help or tools required. 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. Customers can manage their Ring devices by logging into their accounts via the web or the free Ring mobile app. Complainant provides free customer service and support for Ring devices, including via <support.ring.com>. Complainant has rights in the RING mark through its registration in the United States in 2015. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its RING mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety along with the generic term “camera” and the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) “.live”. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its RING mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to confuse and mislead Internet users with a false impression of affiliation with Complainant and offers competing services. Further, Respondent’s use of a disclaimer does not mitigate Respondent’s efforts to mislead Internet users. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark. Respondent incorporates Complainant’s RING mark in the disputed domain name and throughout the domain name’s resolving website in order to pass off as Complainant. Respondent uses the confusingly similar nature of the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic meant for Complainant and commercially benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, Respondent has a pattern of cybersquatting behavior and has repeatedly provided false WHOIS information. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its email to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “The mentioned website is not being used buy [sic] me. It doesn't belong to me.”
Complainant owns the mark RING and uses it to offer home security products and services.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 2015.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and uses its logo as a favicon[i]; it promotes competing technical support services, displaying images of Complainant’s products. The WHOIS information is false. The resolving website contains a disclaimer.
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 incorporates Complainant’s RING mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive/generic term “camera” and the “.live” gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a generic or descriptive term along with a gTLD is generally not sufficient in distinguishing a domain name from a complainant’s prior marks. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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.”). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed Respondent domain name is 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 name: WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Guardair Corporation v. Pablo Palermo, FA1407001571060 (Forum Aug. 28, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <guardair.com> domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information lists “Pablo Palermo” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Manpreet Kaur”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and offer competing services. Specifically, Complainant presents evidence showing that the disputed domain name’s landing page is entitled “Ring Camera Support – Ring Camera Vs Doorbell” and displays images and descriptions of Complainant’s products, including Complainant’s own marketing images; it promotes competing technical support services. Further, the disputed domain name’s landing page displays Complainant’s RING mark and adopts Complainant’s Ring Circle Logo as its favicon. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant's website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent's benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also eBay Inc. v. Hong, D2000-1633 (WIPO Jan. 18, 2001) (stating that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s entire mark in domain names makes it difficult to infer a legitimate use); see also Crow v. LOVEARTH.net, FA 203208 (Forum Nov. 28, 2003) (“It is neither a bona fide offerings [sic] of goods or services, nor an example of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii) when the holder of a domain name, confusingly similar to a registered mark, attempts to profit by passing itself off as Complainant . . . .”); see also Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
Respondent’s use of a disclaimer on the resolving website is not sufficient to confer rights and legitimate interests and fails to mitigate initial confusion. See Las Vegas Sands, Inc. v. Red Group, D2001-1057 (WIPO Dec. 6, 2001) (justifying the conclusion that the respondent wishes to trade on the fame of the complainant’s trademark, regardless of the presence of a small-print disclaimer that is unavailable to Internet users until they have already entered the gambling site, because the disclaimer fails to remedy initial confusion); see also AltaVista Co. v. AltaVisa, FA 95480 (Forum Oct. 31, 2000) (finding that since a disclaimer does not, and could not, accompany the domain name, then the “domain name attracts the consumer’s initial interest and the consumer is misdirected long before he/she has the opportunity to see the disclaimer”). Therefore the Panel finds that the existence of Respondent’s disclaimer is not sufficient to confer rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations. It states that Respondent is apparently the same individual or entity found to have acted in bad faith in a previous UDRP case involving Complainant; while the nominal registrants are different, the address in the footer of the resolving website in the instant case closely matches the address used in the footer of resolving website in the previous case (<ring-camera.com>). The Panel finds that this is not sufficient to satisfy Complainant’s burden of proof for this allegation. Therefore, the Panel will not further discuss this allegation.
Respondent 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 name.
Indeed, Respondent registered the disputed domain name using false WHOIS contact information, and this can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v. Global Mgr, FA 1702001716963 (Forum Mar. 30, 2017) (“Complainant contends that Respondent provided false contact information while registering the disputed domain. Registering a confusingly similar domain name using false contact information can evince bad faith registration.”); see also j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. Vijay S Kumar/Strategic Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd, FA 1411001647718 (Forum Jan. 4, 2016) (“False or misleading contact information indicates bad faith registration and use.”); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Phillip Thomas/Chevron Pacific, FA 1504001615524 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“Complainant’s use of false registration data and its unexplained redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s own website are further indications of such bad faith.”); see also McDonald’s Corp. v. Holy See, FA 0304000155458 (Forum June 27, 2003) (“The Panel finds that Respondent provided false contact information in the registration certificates and that such actions, even though not specifically enumerated in the Policy, may form the basis for a finding of bad faith registration and use.”); see also Mars, Incorporated v. RaveClub Berlin, FA 0106000097361 (Forum July 16, 2001) (providing false registration and contact information for infringing domain names evidenced Respondent’s bad faith). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Further, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in order to give the impression of affiliation with Complainant to promote competing services. Past panels have found bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to pass off as complainant and promote competing services. See American Cheerleader Media, LLC. v. ilir shoshi / cheer, FA 1592319 (Forum Jan. 20, 2015) (“The Panel here finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) as … Respondent utilizes a logo and stylized font identical to Complainant’s own, as well as Complainant’s copyrighted images and text in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant.”); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”); see also V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Bryant Little, FA 301728 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Lafont, FA1009001349611 (Forum Nov. 9, 2009) (“intentional appropriation of Complainant’s mark to mislead Internet users and subsequently profit from them reveals bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b) (iii) and (iv).
Respondent’s use of a disclaimer does not mitigate a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Ciccone v. Parisi, D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 12, 2000) (“Respondent’s use of a disclaimer on its website is insufficient to avoid a finding of bad faith. First, the disclaimer may be ignored or misunderstood by Internet users. Second, a disclaimer does nothing to dispel initial interest confusion that is inevitable from Respondent’s actions. Such confusion is a basis for finding a violation of Complainant’s rights.”); see also Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA0608000768859 (Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (use of disputed domain name to operate a competing website constitutes bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Dell Inc. v. Geeks Technical Solutions Inc., FA1509001637797 (Forum Oct. 13, 2015) (finding that offering competing support services using <dell-help.com> constituted bad faith). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent’s inclusion of a disclaimer does not mitigate a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and uses it as a favicon, and the resolving website displays images of Complainant’s products and promotes competing support services. 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 <ringcamera.live> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: May 24, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page