Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Yuan Yan He / h a
Claim Number: FA2205001996345
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Yuan Yan He / h a (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <blink-factory.com>, <blink-outdoor.com>, <blink-outdoorcamera.shop>, <blink-products.com>, <blinksecurity-us.shop>, and <blink-products.club>, registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.; Dynadot, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 15, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 15, 2022.
On May 16, 2022; May 17, 2022, Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.; Dynadot, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blink-factory.com>, <blink-outdoor.com>, <blink-outdoorcamera.shop>, <blink-products.com>, <blinksecurity-us.shop>, and <blink-products.club> domain names are registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.; Dynadot, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.; Dynadot, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.; Dynadot, 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 May 19, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 8, 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@blink-factory.com, postmaster@blink-outdoor.com, postmaster@blink-outdoorcamera.shop, postmaster@blink-products.com, postmaster@blinksecurity-us.shop, postmaster@blink-products.club. Also on May 19, 2022, the Chinese and English language 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 June 16, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. Therefore, after considering the circumstance of the present case including the fact that Respondent has failed to object to going forward in English, the Panel concludes that the instant proceeding should be conducted in English.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Complainant alleges that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity. 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 holder.”
All but one of the domain names in the present dispute has the same nominal registrant. The remaining domain name was registered on the same day as one of the others and addresses or has addressed an online website/store substantially similar to the website/store addressed by the other at-issue domain names. Therefore, all of the at-issue domain names appear to be related to, or controlled by, the same person, persons, or entity. Additionally, Complainant’s contention that the domain names’ registrants be treated as a single entity in the instant proceeding is unopposed. Based on the foregoing, the Panel will treat the domain names’ registrants as a single entity for the purposes of this proceeding.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Amazon Technologies, Inc., markets Blink-branded smart home security devices.
Complainant has rights in the BLINK mark through its registration with various trademark agencies e.g. Japan Patent Office (JPO), Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (SFIIP), and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Respondent’s <blink-factory.com>, <blink-outdoor.com>, <blink-outdoorcamera.shop>, <blink-products.com>, <blinksecurity-us.shop>, and <blink-products.club> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they incorporate the BLINK mark in its entirety while adding the generic or descriptive terms “factory”, “outdoor”, “camera”, “products”, or “security” and one domain name adds the geographic term “us.” All of the domain names add a hyphen and a “.com”, “.club”, or “.shop” top-level domain (“TLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <blink-factory.com>, <blink-outdoor.com>, <blink-outdoorcamera.shop>, <blink-products.com>, <blinksecurity-us.shop>, and <blink-products.club> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its BLINK mark in any of the domain names. Respondent does not use the domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead now inactively holds five of the six domain names although having previously directed the domain names to fake BLINK/AMAZON-branded stores that prominently display the Blink Logo and the Amazon Logo. Respondent’s used the domain names to passing off as Complainant and to phish for private data. Additionally, Respondent uses the at-issue domain names in competition with Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the <blink-factory.com>, <blink-outdoor.com>, <blink-outdoorcamera.shop>, <blink-products.com>, <blinksecurity-us.shop>, and <blink-products.club> domain names in bad faith. Respondent misleads users while creating a false sense of affiliation with Complainant for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent diverts users and disrupts Complainant’s business. Furthermore, Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to engage in a phishing scheme. Finally, Respondent registered the at-issue domain names in a pattern of bad faith and with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the BLINK trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in the BLINK trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to pass itself off as Complainant and purport to offer competing goods in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
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”).
The at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has multiple national trademark registration for its BLINK trademark. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world.”); see also, Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Taro Yamada / Personal, FA 1582613 (Forum Nov. 25, 2014) (finding that Complainant’s JPO registrations satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).); see also, teamtechnik Maschinen und Anlagen GmbH v. Edgar Bechtle / Ebechtle LLC, FA 1652306 (Forum Jan. 28, 2016) (finding rights in the TEAMTECHNIK mark pursuant to Complainant’s trademark registration with GPTMO).
Respondent’s <blink-factory.com>, <blink-outdoor.com>, <blink-outdoorcamera.shop>, <blink-products.com>, <blinksecurity-us.shop>, and <blink-products.club> domain names each contain Complainant’s BLINK trademark followed by one or more suggestive terms, with all followed by the top-level domain name “.com,” “.shop,” or “.club.” The differences between each at-issue domain names and Complainant’s BLINK trademark are insufficient to distinguish any of the at-issue domain names from BLINK for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <blink-factory.com>, <blink-outdoor.com>, <blink-outdoorcamera.shop>, <blink-products.com>, <blinksecurity-us.shop>, and <blink-products.club> domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLINK trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Empowered Medical Solutions, Inc. d/b/a QRS-Direct and QRS Magnovit AG v. NULL NULL / QUANTRON RESONANCE SYSTEMS / JIM ANDERSON / HTR / unknown HTR / HTR, FA 1784937 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Adding or removing descriptive terms or a gTLD is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of each at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of any at‑issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain names identifies their individual nominal registrants as “Yuan Yan He / h a” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by any of the at-issue domain names. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by any of the at-issue domain names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s at-issue domain names have all addressed a phony BLINK/AMAZON-branded online store which prominently displays the Blink trademark and logo. Such store(s) purports to sell goods offered under Complainant’s BLINK trademark. Respondent’s use of the domain names in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See 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).
Respondent’s at-issue domain names are also used to phish for private information. Respondent’s online BLINK store visitors believing that they are dealing with Complainant are prompted to submit login information that is received by Respondent. Using the domain names to phish for private data is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of each at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <blink-factory.com>, <blink-outdoor.com>, <blink-outdoorcamera.shop>, <blink-products.com>, <blinksecurity-us.shop>, and <blink-products.club> domain names were each registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent has registered Complainant’s trademarks in multiple domain names regarding the current dispute. Respondent has also targeted Complainant by registering Complainant’s trademark in dozens of domain names using different aliases while using such domain names to reference landing pages similar to landing pages addressed by the at-issue domain names. Such numerous foul registrations by Respondent shows a pattern of domain name abuse and indicates Respondent’s bad faith regarding the instant dispute pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1209001464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).; see also DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) (“The record contains evidence of Respondents previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”).
Next, Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by using its confusingly similar domain names to pass itself off as Complainant and compete with Complainant’s BLINK products. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv), using the at-issue domain names to host competing products or services shows bad faith registration and use. See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1506001623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Additionally, Respondent uses the domain names to phish for personal data as Respondent prompts <blink-factory.com>, <blink-outdoor.com>, <blink-outdoorcamera.shop>, <blink-products.com>, <blinksecurity-us.shop>, and <blink-products.club> website visitors to submit their personal data to Respondent. Thereby, Respondent further shows its bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark at the time it registered <blink-factory.com>, <blink-outdoor.com>, <blink-outdoorcamera.shop>, <blink-products.com>, <blinksecurity-us.shop>, and <blink-products.club> as a domain names. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of the BLINK trademark; from Respondent’s incorporation of Complainant’s trademark into the at-issue domain names along with terms suggestive of Complainant’s business; and from Respondent’s use of the domain names to impersonate Complainant and trade off Complainant’s BLINK trademark to compete with Complainant and phish for private information as discussed elsewhere herein. Respondent’s registration and use of <blink-factory.com>, <blink-outdoor.com>, <blink-outdoorcamera.shop>, <blink-products.com>, <blinksecurity-us.shop>, and <blink-products.club> with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK trademark and thus in such domain names further shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4 (a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blink-factory.com>, <blink-outdoor.com>, <blink-outdoorcamera.shop>, <blink-products.com>, <blinksecurity-us.shop>, and <blink-products.club> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: June 20, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page