Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Yuan Yan He / Scot G. Komar
Claim Number: FA2206002001074
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Yuan Yan He / Scot G. Komar (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <blink-product.club>, <blink-product.store>, <blink-outdoorcamera.com>, <ring-sonnettes.shop> registered with Dynadot, LLC; Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd..
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.
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 20, 2022; the Forum received payment on June 20, 2022. The Complaint was submitted in only English.
On June 21, 2022; June 22, 2022, Dynadot, LLC; Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blink-product.club>, <blink-product.store>, <blink-outdoorcamera.com>, <ring-sonnettes.shop> domain names are registered with Dynadot, LLC; Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot, LLC; Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, LLC; Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. 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 June 23, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 13, 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-product.club, postmaster@blink-product.store, postmaster@blink-outdoorcamera.com, postmaster@ring-sonnettes.shop. Also on June 23, 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 July 20, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 THE PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
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 specifically submits that the nominal registrant for all domains except <blink-outdoorcamera.com> is the same, Scot G. Komar. The remaining domain name <blink-outdoorcamera.com> resolves to a website that is substantially identical to the website resolved to by the disputed domains <blink-product.club> and <blink-product.store>, as shown in the screen captures annexed to the Complaint.
Complainant further submits that the disputed domains were all registered a one-month period, all use the nominal host Cloudflare, and all have the same structure, namely, Complainant’s trademark, a hyphen, a generic term, and a gTLD.
Complainant adds that the nominal registrant for <blink-outdoorcamera.com> has been previously found to use multiple aliases to target Complainant’s BLINK brand. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Yuan Yan He / h a, FA2205001996345 (Forum June 20, 2022) (“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”).
Having considered Complainant’s uncontested reasonable submissions, this Panel accepts that on the balance of probabilities, each of the disputed domain names is registered by the same domain-name holder and this Complaint therefore complies with Policy ¶ 3.
However, in permitting this Complaint to proceed, as it does not prejudice the Parties, this Panel is also of the view that bringing a Complaint that relates to two quite distinct trademarks with different nominal registrants has resulted in a very complex and lengthy Complaint.
It is also potentially a false economy as it has necessitated an application on the issue of admissibility that could have been avoided. It would have been more appropriate for many reasons to bring separate Complaints in relation to the rights relied upon in the BLINK and RING marks.
If this Panel is incorrect and there are in fact two separate registrants, neither is prejudiced because as can be seen from the reasoning below, each of the disputed domain names meet the test in Policy ¶ 4.
A. Complainant
In substantive submissions, Complainant submits that it launched Amazon.com in July 1995 and today is one of the world’s leading retailers, offering products and services to more than 100 countries around the world.
Complainant operates the website <www.blinkforhome.com> offering BLINK-branded smart home security devices and cameras and on its website at <www.ring.com> and offers Ring-branded home security products and services including the well-known “Ring Doorbell”.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLINK and RING trademarks.
The disputed domain names each incorporates Complainant’s BLINK or RING trademarks in its entirety, adding only the descriptive or generic terms “camera,” “outdoor,” “product,” or “sonnettes” (French for “doorbells”) , a hyphen, and a generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension <.com>, <.club>, <.shop>, or <.store>.
Complainant argues that adding these elements to Complainant’s registered BLINK or RING trademarks is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names for purposes of the Policy. See e.g., American Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA0404000257901 (Forum June 7, 2004) (“mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”).
Complainant next alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names referring to screen captures of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve, argues that:-
· Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; Respondent is not making a noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain names; and Respondent has never been legitimately known as or referred to as BLINK or RING or any variations thereof and as a result, Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain names, as legitimate interests are defined in Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i)-(iii);
· The Registrar supplied WHOIS identifies Respondent as Yuan Yan He / Scot G. Komar and therefore Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant’s BLINK trademark, citing Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA0411000361190 (Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where there was nothing in the record to indicate that Respondent was commonly known by the domain name);
· Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way;
· Respondent is not licensed by Complainant to use Complainant’s BLINK or RING marks;
· Respondent is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant’s goods or services;
· The disputed domain names all resolve or have resolved to fake BLINK/AMAZON or RING-branded stores that prominently display either the Ring Logo or the Blink Logo and the Amazon Logo and there are no disclaimers and no source indicators other than Complainant’s trademarks;
· The resolving websites for the disputed domains also include BLINK Logo or RING Logo branded login pages that solicit passwords from “returning customers” and personal information for new customers;
· Respondent’s use of Complainant’s BLINK and RING trademarks in the disputed domain names and adoption of BLINK and the Blink Logo or RING and the Ring Logo as its identity, all with no disclaimers, constitutes passing off, is calculated and likely to confuse and mislead the public as to the source or endorsement of Respondent’s websites and services, and is not a fair, nominative, or otherwise legitimate use, citing Microsoft Corp. v. lijiuliang, FA0912001300266 (Forum Feb. 11, 2010) (“Respondent’s attempt to pass itself off as Complainant by imitating Complainant’s official website … is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”);
· Respondent’s passing off behavior precludes bona fide or legitimate use even if Respondent resells Complainant’s goods (which upon information and belief it does not). See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (in order to use a goods manufacturer’s trademark in a domain, “[t]he site must accurately disclose the registrant's relationship with the trademark owner; it may not, for example, falsely suggest that it is the trademark owner, or that the website is the official site, if, in fact, it is only one of many sales agents”).
· Using domain names confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLINK and RING trademarks to promote competing retail stores is also not a legitimate use, citing Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Lin, FA1301001480702 (Forum Feb. 26, 2013) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing goods or services is not 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)”).
· Respondent’s use of Blink Logo or Ring Logo branded login pages to obtain consumers’ personal/account information is also not a legitimate or bona fide use, citing Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Canton, FA2112001976451 (Forum Jan. 5, 2022) (“[T]he log in page under the Complainant’s AMAZON mark and logo is evidence of phishing”)
Complainant next alleges that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith arguing that Respondent knew about Complainant’s BLINK and RING trademarks when the disputed domain names were registered, since Respondent is using the disputed domain names purportedly to sell Complainant’s Blink and Ring products and has displayed the Ring Logo, the Blink Logo, and/or the Amazon Logo throughout its websites.
Also, Complainant contends that Respondent has been previously found to have knowledge of Complainant’s BLINK trademark in Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Yuan Yan He / h a, FA2205001996345 (Forum June 20, 2022) (“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”).
Thus, the disputed domain names were registered with the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its products and services.
Complainant argues further that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (“[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse”).
Furthermore, by incorporating Complainant’s BLINK or RING trademarks in the disputed domain names, identifying itself only using BLINK/RING, and displaying Complainant’s Ring Logo, Blink Logo, and/or Amazon Logo throughout the resolving websites, Respondent creates the false impression that its websites originate with or are endorsed or certified by Complainant. “This is precisely the sort of conduct that falls under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and thus evidences Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names.” MetroPCS, Inc. v. Robertson, FA0609000809749 (Forum Nov. 13, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent’s web site gave the false impression of being affiliated with the complainant).
Furthermore, by using domain names confusingly similar to BLINK and RING to attract traffic to its online stores, Respondent has attempted to commercially benefit, unfairly and opportunistically, from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s marks and this conduct of diversion shows bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Bryant Little, FA0407000301728 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”).
Complaint further argues that using Complainant’s BLINK and RING trademarks to promote competing online stores also potentially diverts and disrupts Complainant’s business and falls under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA0608000768859 (Forum Sep. 21, 2006) (use of disputed domain name to operate a competing website constitutes bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
Complainant adds that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to obtain Blink, Ring, or Amazon user/password information, apparently to facilitate a phishing scheme, which is also evidence of bad faith. See e.g., Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Hines, FA1508001632754 (Forum Sept. 18, 2015) (“Respondent’s use of the … domain name to engage in a phishing scheme is in itself evidence of Respondent’s bad faith”).
Finally, Complainant submits that nominal respondent Yuan Yan He was previously held to have acted in bad faith with respect to Complainant’s BLINK brand in Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Yuan Yan He / h a, FA2205001996345 (Forum June 20, 2022), and in numerous UDRP decisions involving Respondent’s other aliases. See e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Clayton S. Sailor / Theda Folkerts / G H, FA2112001978005 (Forum Jan. 24, 2022) (“The Respondent has been the subject of several adverse UDRP decisions for registering many domain names containing the Complainant’s BLINK mark under numerous aliases showing a pattern of competing activity and illustrative of bad faith”).
Complainant refers to a long list of cases viz. Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Theda Folkerts / azu seedorf / Douglas Hall / Kimberly Ford / Timothy McGraw / John Fitzpatrick / Linsa Starling / Clayton S. Sailor, FA2110001967621 (Forum Nov. 3, 2021); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. azu seedorf / Cleveles Mary / Glova Karl / Nitsch Weiser / Jim Lee / M M / Ony Onv / James P. Biddle, FA2109001963698 (Forum Oct. 15, 2021); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. k m / Daisy luck / Douglas Hall / Troyovsky Gary, FA2108001958537 (Forum Sept. 8, 2021); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Groso row / Hector Lewis, FA2108001960560 (Forum Sept. 20, 2021); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Ony Onv, FA2108001961664 (Forum Oct. 4, 2021); and Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Nitsch Weiser, FA2109001962376 (Forum Sept. 30, 2021) and submits that although the nominal respondents in these cases are different, the same individual or entity is plainly responsible for these domains and the presently disputed domain names since the landing pages for the previously considered domains are substantially similar, the login pages are substantially identical, and prior Panels have held that Respondent employs multiple aliases.
Complainant adds that registering multiple infringing domains related to Complainant’s trademarks, including four in this proceeding alone, reflects a pattern of conduct and is further evidence of bad faith. See e.g., Provide Commerce, Inc. v. Jardimar Holdings Corp, FA1305001502077 (Forum June 27, 2013) (“the existence of previous UDRP decisions where Respondent was found to have registered a domain name in bad faith reveals Respondent’s pattern of cybersquatting behavior”).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is a multinational corporation and for the purposes of this Complaint provides electronic products using the BLINK and RING trademarks including the following registrations for the trademark BLINK
· Republic of Singapore registered trademark and service mark BLINK, registration number 40201811801Q, registered on June 18,2018 for goods and services in classes 9, 11, 12, 35 41, 42 and 45;
· German registered trademark and service mark BLINK, registration number 726217, registered on January 17, 2019 for goods and services in classes 9, 11,12,35,37,38,41,42,45.
· Japan registered trademark BLINK, registered on August 14, 2020 for goods in class 6,
and for the trademark RING
· United States registered trademark RING, registration number 4,724,984, registered on the Principal Register on May 28, 2019 April 21, 2015 for goods in international class 9;
· United States registered trademark RING, registration number 5,135,694 registered on the Principal Register on May 28, 2019 February 7, 2017 for goods in international class 9;
· United States registered service mark RING, registration number 5,289,328, registered on the Principal Register on May 28, 2019 September 19, 2017 for goods in international classes 42 and 45;
· United States registered trademark and service mark RING registration number 5,676,741 registered on February 12, 2019 for goods and services in international classes 9 and 35;
· United States registered trademark and service mark RING registration number 5,764,224 registered on the Principal Register on May 28, 2019 for goods and services in international classes 9, 11, 38 and 45;
· United States registered trademark and service mark RING (stylized), registration number 5,776,163, registered on the Principal Register on June 11, 2019 for goods and services in international classes 9, 11, 38 and 45;
· United States registered service mark RING registration number 5,808,247 registered on the Principal Register on July 16, 2019 for services in international class 37;
· United States registered service mark RING registration number 6,086,244 registered on the Principal Register on June 23, 2020 for services in international classes 35 and 41;
· United States registered service mark RING registration number 6,142,106 registered on the Principal Register on September 1, 2020 for services in international class 42; and
· United States registered trademark and service mark RING (stylized), registration number 6,322,404, registered on the Principal Register on April 13, 2021 for goods and services in international classes 9, 35, 37, 42and 45;
The registration dates and uses to which the disputed domain names have been put are as follows:
· <blink-product.club> registered on June 9, 2022 and resolves to a website purporting to offer camera kit bearing Complainant’s BLINK trademark at highly discounted prices;
· <blink-product.store> registered on May 25, 2022, and has resolved in the past to an identical website purporting to offer camera kit bearing Complainant’s BLINK trademark at highly discounted prices and as of June 20, 2020 resolved to only an error message;
· <blink-outdoorcamera.com> registered on May 17, 2022 and has resolved in the past to an identical website purporting to offer camera kit bearing Complainant’s BLINK trademark at highly discounted prices and as of June 20, 2020 resolved to only an error message;
· <ring-sonnettes.shop> registered on June 13, 2022 and resolves to a French language website purporting to offer doorbell equipment bearing Complainant’s RING trademark at highly discounted prices.
There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Forum for verification of the registration details of the disputed domain name which disclosed the names of the registrants. The identities of the registrants were concealed by means of a proxy service on the published WhoIs.
This Panel has found that the four disputed domain names are held by one person, albeit using an alias.
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 has provided uncontested evidence to prove that on the balance of probabilities it has rights in both the BLINK and RING trademarks and service mark, established by its ownership of its portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations described above and extensive use of the mark in business.
Each of the disputed domain names <blink-product.club>, <blink-product.store>, <blink-outdoorcamera.com> consist of Complainant’s BLINK mark in its entirety followed by a hyphen, a generic term viz. “product” or “outdoor camera” and the gTLD extensions <.club>, <.store> and <.com>.
The disputed domain name <ring-sonnettes.shop> similarly consists of Complainant’s RING mark, followed by a hyphen and a generic term, this time in the French language “sonettes” meaning “doorbells” in English, and followed by the gTLD extension <.shop>.
In each case Complainant’s BLINK or RING mark is the initial and dominant element. There is no other distinguishing element in any of the four disputed domain names, and in each case the presence of the hyphen, and the descriptive and generic terms do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and Complainant’s BLINK or RING mark.
Additionally, the gTLD extensions gTLD extensions ,<.club>, <.store> and <.com> and <.shop>, respectively, would in context be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name and therefore does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and Complainant’s BLINK or RING mark.
This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <blink-product.club>, <blink-product.store>, <blink-outdoorcamera.com> is confusingly similar to the BLINK mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Additionally this Panel finds that the disputed domain name <ring-sonnettes.shop> is confusingly similar to the BLINK mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in respect of that disputed domain name also.
Referring to screen captures of the websites to which the disputed domain names have resolved in the recent past and currently resolve, which are exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that
· Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
· Respondent is not making a noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain names;
· Respondent has never been legitimately known as or referred to as BLINK or RING or any variations thereof;
· as a result, Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain names, as legitimate interests are defined in Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)-(iii) of the Policy;
· the WHOIS information provided by the Registrar, identifies Respondent as Yuan Yan He / Scot G. Komar and so Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant’s BLINK or RING marks;
· Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way;
· Respondent is not licensed by Complainant to use Complainant’s BLINK or RING marks;
· Respondent is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant’s goods or services;
· The disputed domain names all resolve or have resolved to fake BLINK/AMAZON or RING-branded stores that prominently display either the RING Logo or the Blink Logo and Complainant’s AMAZON Logo;
· there are no disclaimers and no source indicators other than Complainant’s trademarks;
· the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve also include BLINK or RING branded login pages that solicit passwords from “returning customers” and personal information for new customers;
· Respondent’s use of Complainant’s BLINK and RING trademarks in the disputed domain names and adoption of BLINK and the Blink Logo or RING and Ring Logo branded login as its identity, all with no disclaimers, is calculated and likely to confuse and mislead the public as to the source or endorsement of Respondent’s websites and services which constitutes passing off and is not a fair, nominative, or otherwise legitimate use of the disputed domain names’
· Respondent’s passing off behavior precludes bona fide or legitimate use even if Respondent resells Complainant’s goods (which upon information and belief it does not);
· Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLINK and RING trademarks to promote competing retail stores is also not a legitimate use.;
· Respondent’s use of Blink Logo or Ring Logo branded login pages to obtain consumers’ personal/account information is also not a legitimate or bona fide use. See e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Canton, FA2112001976451 (Forum Jan. 5, 2022) (“[T]he log in page under the Complainant’s AMAZON mark and logo is evidence of phishing”)
It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent has failed to discharge that burden in respect of any of the disputed domain names and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names or any of them.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The uncontested evidence is that Respondent was aware Complainant’s and its rights in both the BLINK and RING marks when the disputed domain names were registered on in May and June 2022.
By choosing in each case to register a combination of Complainant’s mark, with a hyphen and a generic term in combination with the gTLD extension, on the balance of probabilities the registrant registered each of the disputed domain names to refer to and target Complainant’s goodwill and reputation in the BLINK and RING marks.
In fact it was previously found to have knowledge of Complainant’s BLINK trademark in Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Yuan Yan He / h a, FA2205001996345 (Forum June 20, 2022).
On the balance of probabilities therefore, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names, each with a similar structure, and each having one of Complainant’s marks as a dominant element, must have been chosen and registered to target and take predatory advantage of Complainant, it’s marks and goodwill and goodwill, by creating the false impression of an association with Complainant.
The uncontested evidence is that Respondent is using the disputed domain names, each of which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks in order to opportunistically attract and divert Internet traffic to Respondent’s online stores for commercial benefit.
Specifically, the uncontested evidence shows that
· the disputed domain name <blink-product.club> has resolved in the past to a website purporting to offer camera kit bearing Complainant’s BLINK trademark at highly discounted prices and as of June 20, 2020 resolved to only an error message;
· the disputed domain name <blink-product.store> has resolved in the past to an identical website purporting to offer camera kit bearing Complainant’s BLINK trademark at highly discounted prices and as of June 20, 2020 resolved to only an error message;
· the disputed domain name <blink-outdoorcamera.com> has resolved in the past to an identical website purporting to offer camera kit bearing Complainant’s BLINK trademark at highly discounted prices and as of June 20, 2020 resolved to only an error message; and
· the disputed domain name <<ring-sonnettes.shop> registered on and resolves to a French language website purporting to offer doorbell equipment bearing Complainant’s RING trademark at highly discounted prices.
Respondent did not identify itself on any of the websites to which the disputed domain names resolved in the past. Neither did Respondent state anywhere that it, or its websites, have no association with Complainant. Respondent was purporting to offer Complainant’s goods for sale on each of the websites at unrealistically large discounts.
Such intentional use of the disputed domain names in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web sites and the coupons purported to be offered by the Respondent on the web sites constituted use of the disputed domain names in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
Respondent appears to be presently passively holding the disputed domain names and, in the circumstances described above, such passive holding constitutes bad faith use of the disputed domain names for the purposes of the policy, given the reputation of Complainant’s marks and the bad faith use to which the disputed domain names have recently been put.
There is also a concern that Respondent has not responded to Complainant’s, albeit unproven, allegation that Respondent may be engaged in a phishing scheme, using the marks, by asking Internet visitors to input personal information on the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve.
As this Panel has found that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in 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 <blink-product.club>, <blink-product.store>, <blink-outdoorcamera.com>, and <ring-sonnettes.shop> domain names, and each of them, be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant
James Bridgeman SC
Panelist
Dated: July 21, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page