Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Rahul / Sanjeev Kumar / Manoj Kumar
Claim Number: FA1910001867990
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Diamond of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondents are Rahul USA / Sanjeev Kumar India / Manoj Kumar India (“Respondents”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <download-alexa.com>, <downloadalexiaapp.com> and <quickalexasetup.com>, 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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 22, 2019; the Forum received payment on October 22, 2019.
On October 22, 2019; Oct 29, 2019, Godaddy.Com, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <download-alexa.com>, <downloadalexiaapp.com>, and <quickalexasetup.com> domain names are registered with Godaddy.Com, Llc and that Respondents are the current registrants of the names. Godaddy.Com, Llc has verified that Respondents are bound by the Godaddy.Com, Llc registration agreement and have thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 31, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 20, 2019 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondents’ registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org. Also on October 31, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondents of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondents via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents’ registrations as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondents, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 25, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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[s]" 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 Respondents.
Pursuant to Rule 3(c) and Supplemental Rule 4(c), Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are owned by the same individual or entity and can be considered in a single complaint.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondents to Complainant.
Amazon launched the Amazon Echo smart speaker in 2014. It features Alexa, Amazon’s cloud-based voice service, capable of voice interaction, answering questions, providing news and real-time information, music playback, calling and messaging, setting alarms, controlling home automation systems, playing games, and many other tasks.
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALEXA trademark. Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names, which were registered and are being used in bad faith.
As to legitimacy, Respondents are not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names nor have they been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use Complainant’s mark. Respondents’ use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, as Respondents are attempting to pass themselves off as Complainant to further a phishing scheme. This is also demonstrative of bad faith registration and use.
Further as to bad faith, Respondents are attempting to disrupt Complainant’s business and had actual knowledge of Complainant’s right in the ALEXA mark at the time of registration. The registrant of the <downloadalexiaapp.com> domain name has a pattern of bad faith registrations. See Google LLC v. Sanjeev Kumar, FA1810001811836 (Forum Nov. 18, 2018).
Respondents failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the ALEXA mark. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to that mark. Complainant has established that Respondents lack rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, which Respondents registered and are using in bad faith.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Paragraph 3(c) of 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.” Under Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules a “Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.”
The <download-alexa.com> domain name was registered in the name of Rahul on October 18, 2018. The domain name <downloadalexiaapp.com> was registered in the name of Sanjeev Kumar on November 16, 2018. The domain name <quickalexasetup.com> was registered in the name of Manoj Kumar on November 12, 2018.
Complainant has alleged that the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, operating under several aliases. This is due to the similar layouts and uses of the web pages to which the disputed domain names resolve, the phone numbers having the same country code and two of the registrants having the same surname.
The Panel finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that the registrant entities are under common control. Accordingly, it is appropriate that the Respondents be consolidated in one proceeding, in accordance with the Rules.
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 Respondents’ 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”).
Complainant has rights in the ALEXA mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office Reg. No. 2,181,470, registered Aug. 11, 1998 and assigned to Complainant in October, 2017.
The domain name <download-alexa.com> comprises Complainant’s ALEXA trademark, with the added descriptive word ‘download’, a hyphen and the inconsequential gTLD ‘.com’, which may be disregarded under this element. The domain name <downloadalexiaapp.com> differs only in the absence of the hyphen, the misspelling of Complainant’s mark and the added word ‘app’. The domain name <quickalexasetup.com> adds the descriptive words ‘quick’ and ‘setup’ to Complainant’s mark, again with the inconsequential gTLD ‘.com’. None of these differences suffice to distinguish the domain names from Complainant’s mark. See the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8: “Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”
Accordingly, the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALEXA trademark.
The Panel finds that the ALEXA mark is distinctive and widely known. The Complainant’s assertions are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names on the part of the Respondents. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondents to show that they do have rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
The Respondents have made no attempt to do so.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
As mentioned, the Panel finds that the ALEXA mark is distinctive and widely known. All the disputed domain names were registered in late 2018. They recognizably incorporate Complainant’s ALEXA trademark (albeit, in one case, misspelled as ALEXIA). They resolve to websites which display Complainant’s Alexa Logo and product images for Complainant’s Echo and Alexa-enabled devices and/or mobile app. They appear to offer tech support services for Complainant’s Alexa technology. They feature similar content, including closely similar download animations and, when engaged, they display identical network error code messages.
The Panel is satisfied that each of the Respondents and the person or entity having control of all three disputed domain names was aware of Complainant and its ALEXA mark when registering the disputed domain names and did so primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business. Further, the Panel is satisfied that, by using its disputed domain name, each Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or of a product or service on its website.
Accordingly, the Panel finds each of the disputed domain names was registered and is being used in bad faith, within paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <download-alexa.com>, <downloadalexiaapp.com>, and <quickalexasetup.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: December 1, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page