Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Juanita Thomas
Claim Number: FA2112001975369
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Juanita Thomas (“Respondent”), New Jersey, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ringdoorbell.top>, registered with Namesilo, 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.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 1, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 1, 2021.
On December 1, 2021, Namesilo, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ringdoorbell.top> domain name is registered with Namesilo, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Namesilo, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Namesilo, 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 2, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 22, 2021 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@ringdoorbell.top. Also on December 2, 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 December 27, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i) Complainant is one of the world’s leading retailers, offering products and services to more than 100 countries around the globe. Complainant has rights in the RING mark through its registration of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. 4,724,984, registered April 21, 2015). The disputed domain name <ringdoorbell.top> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RING mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “doorbell” along with the “.top” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the RING 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 name resolves to a webpage that offers Complainant’s products for sale.
iii) Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent resolves to a webpage that offers Complainant’s products for sale. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the RING mark due to the manner of use of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on November 15, 2021.
2. Complainant has established rights in the RING mark through its registration of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. 4,724,984, registered April 21, 2015).
3. The disputed domain name’s resolving webpage shows Complainant’s RING mark and offers products associated with that mark for sale.
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”).
Complainant claims to have rights in the RING mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Complainant has provided the Panel with a copy of its USPTO registration for the RING mark (e.g. Reg. 4,724,984, registered April 21, 2015). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the RING mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <ringdoorbell.top> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RING mark. Complainant contends that Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “doorbell” along with the “.top” gTLD. Registration of a domain name that contains a mark in its entirety and adds a generic word and a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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”).
Complainant argues Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the RING mark or register domain names using Complainant’s mark. 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). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Juanita Thomas” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the RING mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that offers Complainant’s products for sale. Respondent’s passing off behavior precludes bona fide or legitimate use even if Respondent resells Complainant’s goods. Use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a domain name that offers a complainant’s products for sale is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See The Lincoln Electric Company v. Privacy protection service - whoisproxy.ru, FA 1651493 (Forum Jan. 13, 2016) (noting that, as Respondent used the disputed domain to promote Complainant’s distributor without license to do so, Respondent did not demonstrate any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Complainant has provided screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage that shows Complainant’s RING mark and offers products associated with that mark for sale. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage that offers Complainant’s products for sale. Furthermore, by incorporating Complainant’s RING trademark in the disputed domain name, identifying itself as RING, and prominently displaying the Ring Logo in its masthead, Respondent creates the false impression that its website originates with or is endorsed or certified by Complainant. In addition, by using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s RING trademark to attract business to Respondent’s unrelated online store, Respondent has attempted to commercially benefit, unfairly and opportunistically, from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark, and this conduct of diversion shows bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Use of a disputed domain name that makes use of a complainant’s mark in order to sell a complainant’s product may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Kipling Apparel Corp. v. Yan Feng Geng, FA 1703296 (Forum Dec. 20, 2016) (finding the respondent registered and used the <kiplingstores.com> domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because the respondent used the domain name to sell the complainant’s products that were either counterfeit or genuine products resold without authorization). The Panel recalls that Complainant has provided screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage that shows Complainant’s RING mark and offers products associated with that mark for sale. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant further contends that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the RING mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. To support this assertion, Complainant points to the fact that Respondent references Complainant’s products and displays Complainant’s Ring Logo at the resolving website. The Panel observes that actual knowledge can adequately demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). The Panel notes that Complainant operates the website <ring.com> and offers Ring-branded cameras and home security products and services including the well-known Ring Doorbell mark. The Panel infers, due to the manner of use of the disputed domain name and the notoriety of the mark Ring Doorbell that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s right in its mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name, which supports a finding of 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 <ringdoorbell.top> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: December 29, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page