Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. JOHN ROOD
Claim Number: FA1612001705454
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is JOHN ROOD (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <amazonsafetycertification.com>, registered with Uniregistrar Corp.
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 December 1, 2016; the Forum received payment on December 1, 2016.
On December 5, 2016, Uniregistrar Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <amazonsafetycertification.com> domain name is registered with Uniregistrar Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Uniregistrar Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Uniregistrar Corp 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 5, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 27, 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@amazonsafetycertification.com. Also on December 5, 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 29, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant 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). Respondent’s <amazonsafetycertification.com> is confusingly similar to the AMAZON.COM mark because is incorporates the mark completely while adding the terms “safety” and “certification.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <amazonsafetycertification.com>. The WHOIS identifies JOHN ROOD as registrant, and there is no other evidence on record which would substantiate a claim that Respondent is commonly known by <amazonsafetycertification.com>. Respondent originally registered the domain name with a privacy service. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, nor does it hold any license to use any of Complainant’s marks. Further, Respondent does not use <amazonsafetycertification.com> in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use because it resolves to a page that reads, “Amazon Safety Certification—Need to get your Amazon product safety certified? You’re in the right place!” Respondent uses the website in furtherance of a fraudulent certification scheme.
Respondent registered and used <amazonsafetycertification.com> in bad faith. Respondent’s website is dedicated to defraud consumers in a scheme that disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and from which Respondent presumably profits as per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent registered and used the domain name with actual knowledge due to the fame of Complainant’s mark and the use Respondent has made of it. Respondent’s engagement of a privacy service indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Amazon Technologies, Inc., is one of the world’s largest online retailers, offering products and services to more than 100 countries around the world. Complainant has rights in the AMAZON.COM mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,078,496, registered July 15, 1997). Respondent’s <amazonsafetycertification.com> is confusingly similar to the AMAZON.COM mark.
Respondent, JOHN ROOD, registered the <amazonsafetycertification.com> domain name on September 16, 2016.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <amazonsafetycertification.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by <amazonsafetycertification.com>. Respondent originally registered the domain name with a privacy service. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s marks. Further, Respondent does not use <amazonsafetycertification.com> in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the resolving website in furtherance of a fraudulent certification scheme.
Respondent registered and used <amazonsafetycertification.com> in bad faith. Respondent’s use of the resolving website for a fraudulent scheme disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent presumably profits from this scheme in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent registered and used the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s AMAZON.COM mark.
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.”).
Complainant has rights in the AMAZON.COM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with the USPTO. See T-Mobile USA, Inc. dba MetroPCS v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1627542 (Forum Aug. 9, 2015) (finding that Complainant has rights in the METROPCS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.).
Respondent’s <amazonsafetycertification.com> is confusingly similar to the AMAZON.COM mark because is incorporates the mark completely while adding the terms “safety” and “certification.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <amazonsafetycertification.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by <amazonsafetycertification.com>. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its AMAZON.COM mark. The WHOIS identifies “JOHN ROOD” as registrant. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, and all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Respondent does not use <amazonsafetycertification.com> in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a page that reads, “Amazon Safety Certification—Need to get your Amazon product safety certified? You’re in the right place!” Respondent uses the website for a fraudulent certification scheme. Respondent’s use of a domain comprising Complainant’s famous AMAZON trademark and a business address in Seattle, Washington, to promote and provide alleged safety certification services is calculated and likely to deceive Complainant’s customers into believing that products have been certified by Complainant when they have not. Where a Respondent engages in a fraudulent scheme, no rights or legitimate interests may exist. See Yahoo! Inc. v. sumit kalra / mam solution / mam solutions, FA1512001650447 (Forum Dec. 31, 2015) (finding no legitimate or bona fide use for <yahootechnicalhelp.org> where its “sole apparent use has been in connection with a fraudulent scheme aimed at Complainant's customers”).
Respondent registered and used <amazonsafetycertification.com> in bad faith.
Respondent’s use of the resolving website for a fraudulent scheme disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Respondent presumably profits from this scheme in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Yahoo! Inc. v. sumit kalra / mam solution / mam solutions, FA1512001650447 (Forum Dec. 31, 2015) (“Respondent's registration of domain names obviously intended to create confusion with Complainant, together with its use of those domain names in connection with a fraudulent scheme involving passing itself off as Complainant and attempting to defraud Complainant's customers, is indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).”).
Respondent registered and used the <amazonsafetycertification.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s AMAZON.COM mark, and therefore, in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA1411001591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) (“This Panel makes that inference; Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and Respondent’s use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to and in competition with Complainant.”).
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 <amazonsafetycertification.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: January 12, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page