Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Kayla Staley / Betty Chambers / Brian Hoogstra / artem krolev / artem kfek
Claim Number: FA1611001701041
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Fabricio Vayra of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington D.C., United States. Respondent is Kayla Staley / Betty Chambers / Brian Hoogstra / artem krolev / artem kfek (“Respondent”), Michigan, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <amazonshippingcenter01.com>, <amazonshippingcenter02.com>, <amazonshippingcenter03.com>, <amazonshippingcenter04.com>, <amazonshippingcenter05.com>, <amazonshippingcenter06.com>, <amazonshippingcenter07.com>, <amazonshippingcenter08.com>, <amazonshippingcenter09.com>, <amazonshippingcenter10.com>, <amazonshippingcenter11.com>, <amazonshippingcenter12.com>, <amazonshippingcenter13.com>, <amazonshippingcenter14.com>, <amazonshippingcenter15.com>, <amazonshippingcenter16.com>, <amazonshippingcenter17.com>, <amazonshippingcenter18.com>, <amazonshippingcenter19.com>, <amazonshippingcenter20.com>, <amazonshippingcenter21.com>, <amazonshippingcenter22.com>, <amazonshippingcenter23.com>, <amazonshippingcenter24.com>, <amazonshippingcenter25.com>, <amazonshippingcenter26.com>, <amazonshippingcenter27.com>, <amazonshippingcenter28.com>, <amazonshippingcenter29.com>, <amazonshippingcenter30.com>, <amazonshippingcenter31.com>, <amazonshippingcenter32.com>, <amazonshippingcenter33.com>, <amazonshippingcenter34.com>, <amazonshippingcenter35.com>, <amazonshippingcenter36.com>, <amazonshippingcenter37.com>, <amazonshippingcenter38.com>, <amazonshippingcenter39.com>, <amazonshippingcenter40.com>, <amazonshippingcenter41.com>, and <amazonshippingcenter42.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 2, 2016; the Forum received payment on November 2, 2016.
On November 3, 2016, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <amazonshippingcenter01.com>, <amazonshippingcenter02.com>, <amazonshippingcenter03.com>, <amazonshippingcenter04.com>, <amazonshippingcenter05.com>, <amazonshippingcenter06.com>, <amazonshippingcenter07.com>, <amazonshippingcenter08.com>, <amazonshippingcenter09.com>, <amazonshippingcenter10.com>, <amazonshippingcenter11.com>, <amazonshippingcenter12.com>, <amazonshippingcenter13.com>, <amazonshippingcenter14.com>, <amazonshippingcenter15.com>, <amazonshippingcenter16.com>, <amazonshippingcenter17.com>, <amazonshippingcenter18.com>, <amazonshippingcenter19.com>, <amazonshippingcenter20.com>, <amazonshippingcenter21.com>, <amazonshippingcenter22.com>, <amazonshippingcenter23.com>, <amazonshippingcenter24.com>, <amazonshippingcenter25.com>, <amazonshippingcenter26.com>, <amazonshippingcenter27.com>, <amazonshippingcenter28.com>, <amazonshippingcenter29.com>, <amazonshippingcenter30.com>, <amazonshippingcenter31.com>, <amazonshippingcenter32.com>, <amazonshippingcenter33.com>, <amazonshippingcenter34.com>, <amazonshippingcenter35.com>, <amazonshippingcenter36.com>, <amazonshippingcenter37.com>, <amazonshippingcenter38.com>, <amazonshippingcenter39.com>, <amazonshippingcenter40.com>, <amazonshippingcenter41.com>, and <amazonshippingcenter42.com> domain names are registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 29, 2016 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@amazonshippingcenter01.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter02.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter03.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter04.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter05.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter06.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter07.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter08.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter09.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter10.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter11.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter12.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter13.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter14.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter15.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter16.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter17.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter18.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter19.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter20.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter21.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter22.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter23.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter24.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter25.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter26.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter27.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter28.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter29.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter30.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter31.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter32.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter33.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter34.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter35.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter36.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter37.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter38.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter39.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter40.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter41.com, postmaster@amazonshippingcenter42.com. Also on November 9, 2016, 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 December 5, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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, Amazon Technologies, Inc., uses its AMAZON.COM mark in connection with its business of providing online retail and related goods and services. Complainant has registered the AMAZON.COM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,078,496, registered July 15, 1997), which demonstrates Complainant’s rights in its mark. The domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they wholly incorporate the mark and merely add the generic terms “shipping” and “center,” a number between one and forty-two, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names, and Respondent has no license or authorization to use Complainant’s mark. Further, Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain names to send false and misleading e-mails to perpetrate a fraudulent scheme to obtain sensitive personal or financial information from Internet users.
Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith. First, Respondent’s registration of forty-two domain names constitutes a pattern of bad faith. Second, Respondent uses the domain names to phish for Internet users’ personal or financial information. Third, in its attempt to phish for Internet users’ information, Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant. Finally, it is inferred from Respondent’s fraudulent e-mail scheme that Respondent registered the domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark and rights.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant uses its AMAZON.COM mark in connection with its business of providing online retail and related goods and services. Complainant has rights in the AMAZON.COM mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,078,496, registered July 15, 1997). The domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they wholly incorporate the mark and merely add the generic terms “shipping” and “center,” a number between one and forty-two, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
On October 9, 2016. Respondent registered the <amazonshippingcenter01.com>, <amazonshippingcenter02.com>, <amazonshippingcenter03.com>, <amazonshippingcenter10.com>, <amazonshippingcenter11.com>, <amazonshippingcenter13.com>, <amazonshippingcenter16.com>, <amazonshippingcenter18.com>, <amazonshippingcenter19.com>, and <amazonshippingcenter21.com> domain names. On October, 10, 2016,Respondent registered the <amazonshippingcenter04.com>, <amazonshippingcenter05.com>, <amazonshippingcenter06.com>, <amazonshippingcenter07.com>, <amazonshippingcenter08.com>, <amazonshippingcenter09.com>, <amazonshippingcenter12.com>, <amazonshippingcenter14.com>, <amazonshippingcenter15.com>, <amazonshippingcenter17.com>, <amazonshippingcenter20.com>, <amazonshippingcenter22.com>, <amazonshippingcenter23.com>, <amazonshippingcenter24.com>, <amazonshippingcenter25.com>, <amazonshippingcenter26.com>, <amazonshippingcenter27.com>, <amazonshippingcenter28.com>, <amazonshippingcenter29.com>, <amazonshippingcenter30.com>, <amazonshippingcenter31.com>, <amazonshippingcenter32.com>, <amazonshippingcenter33.com>, <amazonshippingcenter34.com>, <amazonshippingcenter35.com>, <amazonshippingcenter36.com>, <amazonshippingcenter37.com>, <amazonshippingcenter38.com>, <amazonshippingcenter39.com>, <amazonshippingcenter40.com>, <amazonshippingcenter41.com>, and <amazonshippingcenter42.com> domain names.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names, and Respondent has no license or authorization to use Complainant’s mark. Further, Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain names to phish for Internet users’ personal or financial information.
Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith. First, Respondent’s registration of forty-two domain names constitutes a pattern of bad faith. Second, Respondent uses the domain names to phish for Internet users’ personal or financial information. Third, in its attempt to phish for Internet users’ information, Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant. Finally, Respondent registered the domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark and rights.
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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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 makes several arguments that all of the disputed domain names are owned and controlled by a single Respondent. First, Complainant claims that all of the disputed domain names were registered within a two-day period (October 9–10, 2016) using the same registrar. Second, Complainant claims that all the disputed domain names share the same name servers and IP addresses. Third, Complainant argues that the WHOIS information for the forty-two disputed domain names shows a pattern of similarity regarding the registrant state, postal code, phone number, and e-mail address. Lastly, Complainant argues that all of the disputed domain names only differ by sequential numbers after “amazonshippingcenter,” and that this level of commonality leads to the inference that all of the disputed domain names are owned and controlled by the same Respondent. The Panel finds that the domain names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases.
Complainant has rights in the AMAZON.COM markunder Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based on registration with the USPTO. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark. . . .”).
Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMAZON.COM mark. Respondent has wholly incorporated the mark into each domain name. The domain names merely add the generic terms “shipping” and “center,” a random number between one and forty-two, and the “.com” gTLD.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its AMAZON.COM mark. Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names does not show that Respondent is known as “Amazon Shipping Center” or the variations featuring a number between one and forty-two. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)).
Respondent is not using the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or to make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent is using the disputed domain names for their e-mail suffix as part of an e-mail phishing scheme. Complainant has submitted evidence of an alleged phishing scheme, whereby Respondent allegedly sent unsuspecting Internet users an e-mail confirming an order for $1,970.00 and then obtaining their personal information when they attempted to cancel the order. Panels have held that phishing behavior does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to “phish” for users’ personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Thomas Webber / Chev Ronoil Recreational Sport Limited, FA 1661076 (Forum Mar. 15, 2016) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, stating, “Respondent is using an email address to pass themselves off as an affiliate of Complainant. Complainant presents evidence showing that the email address that Respondent has created is used to solicit information and money on false pretenses. The disputed domain name is being used to cause the recipients of these emails to mistakenly believe Respondent has a connection with Complainant and is one of the Complainant’s affiliates.”).
Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering forty-two domain names that all infringe on its AMAZON.COM mark. Panels have found that a respondent demonstrates a pattern of bad faith when it registers multiple domain names in a single proceeding. See 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).”).
Respondent is using the disputed domain names as part of an e-mail phishing scheme. Complainant has provided evidence of an e-mail sent from <invoice438@amazonshippingcenter31.com>, in which Respondent allegedly tricks Internet users into providing personal information to “cancel” an order with Complainant that never took place. Panels have found a respondent’s registration of a domain name to be in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) when the domain name is used to send phishing e-mails. See Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Services LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA1506001623601 (Forum July 14, 2015) (“Respondent’s attempt to use the <zoietis.com> domain name to phish for personal information in fraudulent emails also constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Respondent’s attempt to phish for Internet users’ information constitutes an attempt by Respondent to pass itself off as Complainant. Panels have determined that a respondent’s use of a domain name to pass itself off as a complainant is evidence of bad faith. See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use).
Respondent registered the domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark and rights which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum Aug. 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <amazonshippingcenter01.com>, <amazonshippingcenter02.com>, <amazonshippingcenter03.com>, <amazonshippingcenter04.com>, <amazonshippingcenter05.com>, <amazonshippingcenter06.com>, <amazonshippingcenter07.com>, <amazonshippingcenter08.com>, <amazonshippingcenter09.com>, <amazonshippingcenter10.com>, <amazonshippingcenter11.com>, <amazonshippingcenter12.com>, <amazonshippingcenter13.com>, <amazonshippingcenter14.com>, <amazonshippingcenter15.com>, <amazonshippingcenter16.com>, <amazonshippingcenter17.com>, <amazonshippingcenter18.com>, <amazonshippingcenter19.com>, <amazonshippingcenter20.com>, <amazonshippingcenter21.com>, <amazonshippingcenter22.com>, <amazonshippingcenter23.com>, <amazonshippingcenter24.com>, <amazonshippingcenter25.com>, <amazonshippingcenter26.com>, <amazonshippingcenter27.com>, <amazonshippingcenter28.com>, <amazonshippingcenter29.com>, <amazonshippingcenter30.com>, <amazonshippingcenter31.com>, <amazonshippingcenter32.com>, <amazonshippingcenter33.com>, <amazonshippingcenter34.com>, <amazonshippingcenter35.com>, <amazonshippingcenter36.com>, <amazonshippingcenter37.com>, <amazonshippingcenter38.com>, <amazonshippingcenter39.com>, <amazonshippingcenter40.com>, <amazonshippingcenter41.com>, and <amazonshippingcenter42.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: December 19, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page