Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. William Houston / Keaton Stiedemann / steve arosnd / klaudin amenda
Claim Number: FA2201001979865
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is William Houston / Keaton Stiedemann / steve arosnd / klaudin amenda (“Respondent”), Andorra.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <amztoken.org>, <amztokensales.net>, <amzsalestoken.net>, and <amz-projects.com>, registered with Namecheap, Inc.; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu.
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 Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 11, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 11, 2022.
On January 11, 2022, Namecheap, Inc.; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <amztoken.org>, <amztokensales.net>, <amzsalestoken.net>, and <amz-projects.com> domain names are registered with Namecheap, Inc.; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Namecheap, Inc.; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Namecheap, Inc.; Hosting Concepts B.V. D/B/A Registrar.Eu 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 January 14, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 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@amztoken.org, postmaster@amztokensales.net, postmaster@amzsalestoken.net, postmaster@amz-projects.com. Also on January 14, 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.
On February 9, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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.
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 contends that the disputed domain names all resolve to the same content, that the content (and copyrights for said content) was attributed to the same entity, the disputed domain names were all registered within eight weeks of each other, and four of the domain names were registered less than two weeks apart with the same registrar.
After considering that evidence and all of the circumstances, the Panel finds the domain names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. The proceeding was therefore instituted properly and may go forward on that basis.
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions.
Complainant is a web services and e-commerce company. Complainant has rights in the AMAZON mark through its registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. 2,078,496, registered Jul. 15, 1997). See Compl. Ex. I. Respondent’s <amztoken.org>, <amztokensales.net>, <amzsalestoken.net>, and <amz-projects.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the AMAZON mark as they incorporate an abbreviation of the mark, along with some combination of the words “token”, “sales”, and “projects”, along with the “.org”, “.net”, and “.com” generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <amztoken.org>, <amztokensales.net>, <amzsalestoken.net>, and <amz-projects.com> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use an abbreviation of its AMAZON mark in the disputed domain names. Respondent has not used and does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offerings of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair uses. Respondent previously hosted a phishing scheme on the resolving websites, by passing off as Complainant and offering competing goods or services through advertisement of a token. Respondent now inactively holds the disputed domain names.
Respondent registered and uses the <amztoken.org>, <amztokensales.net>, <amzsalestoken.net>, and <amz-projects.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent disrupted Complainant’s business for commercial gain by previously hosting a phishing scheme on the resolving websites, passing off as Complainant, and offering competing goods or services through advertisement of a token. Respondent now inactively holds the disputed domain names. Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AMAZON mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States company that is a prominent web services and e-commerce company.
2. Complainant has established its rights in the AMAZON mark through its registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. 2,078,496, registered Jul. 15, 1997).
3. Respondent registered the <amztoken.org> on December 16, 2021, <amztokensales.net> on December 2, 2021, <amzsalestoken.net> on December 4, 2021 and <amz-projects.com> domain names on October 31, 2021.
4. Respondent previously hosted a phishing scheme on the resolving websites by passing itself off as Complainant and offering competing goods or services through advertisement of a cryptocurrency token and Respondent now inactively holds the disputed domain names.
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 the domain names 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 first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has rights in the AMAZON mark through its registrations with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. 2,078,496, registered Jul. 15, 1997). See Compl. Ex. I. Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient in demonstrating rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Phusion Projects, LLC vs. Ferg / Ferg, FA 1912001874943 (Forum Jan. 8, 2020) (“Complainant’s USPTO registration of its FOUR LOKO mark establishes Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, if the Panel agrees, it may find Complainant has rights in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMAZON mark. Complainant argues that Respondent’s <amztoken.org>, <amztokensales.net>, <amzsalestoken.net>, and <amz-projects.com> domain names (hereinafter “the disputed domain names”) are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMAZON mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), a domain name may be identical or confusingly similar to a mark where it incorporates a common or well-known abbreviation of a Complainant’s mark, along with generic or descriptive words and a gTLD. See SEMCO Prods., LLC v. dmg world media (uk) ltd, FA 913881 (Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the <atlhomeshow.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s ATLANTA HOME SHOW mark, as “atl” was a common abbreviation for the city of Atlanta). Complainant argues that the letters “amz” are clearly an abbreviation for its AMAZON mark. The disputed domain names incorporate these letters along with various combinations of the words “token”, “sales”, and “project”, along with the “.org”., “.net”, and “.com” gTLDs. Therefore, as the Panel agrees, it finds Respondent’s domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that 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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s AMAZON mark and to use it in its domain names to form the letters “amz” that are clearly an abbreviation for the AMAZON mark and to incorporate various combinations of the words “token”, “sales”, and “projects” to the mark;
(b) Respondent registered the <amztoken.org> on December 16, 2021, <amztokensales.net> on December 2, 2021, <amzsalestoken.net> on December 4, 2021 and <amz-projects.com> domain names on October 31, 2021;
(c) Respondent previously hosted a phishing scheme on the resolving websites by passing itself off as Complainant and offering competing goods or services through advertisement of a cryptocurrency token and Respondent now inactively holds the disputed domain names;
(d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(e) Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use an acronym of its AMAZON mark in the disputed domain names. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS Information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name, while a lack of evidence demonstrating otherwise may affirm a Complainant’s assertion that it never authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark in a disputed domain name. See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) (“Here, the WHOIS information lists “er nong wu” as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). The WHOIS of record identifies Respondent as “William Houston,” “Keaton Stiedemann”, “steve arosnd”, and “klaudin amenda”. See Registrar Verification Email. Therefore, as the Panel agrees, it finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(f) Complainant argues that Respondent did not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Passing off as a Complainant and offering competing services in furtherance a phishing scheme is generally not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See iFinex Inc. v. Yuri Hefetz / Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent’s mimicing the complainant’s website in order to cause existing or potential customers to falsely believe they are setting up a new account with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum Feb. 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain names’ previous resolving websites, which offered purported cryptocurrency tokens for sale under Complainant’s mark. See Compl. Exs. L – O. Complainant argues this content is actually a phishing scheme, as users are prompted to input various personal information in order to sign up for the scheme. See id. Alternatively, if the services offered are real, Complainant argues they conflict with the technology and finance aspects of its business. As the Panel agrees, it finds Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offerings of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair uses under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii);
(g) Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names for any bona fide offerings of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use because it holds the disputed domain names inactively. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), inactively holding a disputed domain name is generally not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain names’ resolving websites, which now feature no content. See Compl. Ex. P. Therefore, as the Panel agrees, it finds Respondent is not using the disputed domain names for any bona fide offerings of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
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 does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. Passing off as a Complainant and/or offering competing services on the disputed domain names resolving websites is generally considered evidence of bad faith disruption for commercial gain under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant’s business). The Panel recalls Complainant’s screenshots of the disputed domain names’ previous resolving websites, which offered purported “token” services under Complainant’s mark. See Compl. Exs. L – O. Complainant argues that if these services are real, they compete with the financial and technology aspects of its business. As the Panel agrees, it finds Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Secondly, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith by perpetuating a phishing scheme on the disputed domain names’ resolving websites. Passing off as a Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme is generally considered evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). The Panel recalls Complainant’s screenshots of the disputed domain names’ previous resolving websites, which offered purported “token” services under Complainant’s mark. See Compl. Exs. L – O. Complainant argues that this offering actually is a phishing scheme where users enter personal information to “sign up” for the service. As the Panel agrees, it finds Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Thirdly, Complainant argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AMAZON mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge is generally sufficient in demonstrating bad faith, and may be established through Respondent’s incorporation of a registered/well-known mark into and use of a disputed domain name. 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.”). The Panel recalls that the domain names incorporate what Complainant argues is an abbreviation of the AMAZON mark, while the resolving websites previously offered cryptocurrency token services with Complainant’s AMAZON mark displayed fully. See Compl. Exs. L – O. Therefore, as the Panel agrees, it finds Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Fourthly, Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain names in bad faith by inactively holding them. Inactively holding a disputed domain name is generally considered evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Indiana University v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA1411001588079 (Forum Dec. 28, 2014) (“Under the circumstances, Respondent’s seemingly inutile holding of the at-issue domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). The Panel recalls Complainant’s screenshots of the disputed domain names’ current resolving websites, which features no content. See Compl. Ex. P. Therefore, as the Panel agrees, it finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Fifthly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names using an obvious abbreviation of the AMAZON mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using the domain names, Respondent registered and used them in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <amztoken.org>, <amztokensales.net>, <amzsalestoken.net>, and <amz-projects.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Panelist
Dated: February 10, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page