Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Abdullah Sheikh / SiteGrounbd
Claim Number: FA2301002026468
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., USA. Respondent is Abdullah Sheikh / SiteGrounbd / MD Sobuz Shakh (“Respondent”), Bangladesh.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <amazontech.click> and <amazoearning.com>, registered with Porkbun Llc, ; PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 5, 2023; Forum received payment on January 5, 2023.
On January 5, 2023; January 10, 2023, Porkbun Llc, ; PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <amazontech.click> and <amazoearning.com> domain names are registered with Porkbun Llc, ; PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Porkbun Llc, ; PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun Llc, ; PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 11, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 31, 2023 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@amazontech.click, postmaster@amazoearning.com. Also on January 11, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send emails to the Forum, see below.
On February 4, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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.”
The Panel finds that the domain names are under common control as Respondent admits that it registered both domain names, see communication from Respondent below. This is sufficient to find that the domain names were registered by the same domain name holder. See The Valspar Corporation v. Zhou Zhiliang / zhouzhiliang / Zhiliang Zhou / Eric Chow / Visspa Ltd., FA100800133934 (Forum Sept. 28, 2010); see also BBY Solutions, Inc. v. White Apple / Dev Kumar, FA1805001787251 (Forum June 20, 2018).
Consequently, the Panel will rule on both contested domain names, and the two registrants are collectively referred to as “Respondent”.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is a leading online retailer offering products and services in more than 100 countries around the world. In 1994, Complainant’s Founder Jeff Bezos developed an innovative plan to sell a wide selection of books over the Internet. Complainant opened its virtual doors in July 1995, offering online retail store services featuring books via the web site <www.amazon.com>. In its first four weeks of operation, the company shipped product to customers in all 50 states and in more than 45 other countries. On May 16, 1996, less than a year after its website launched, Complainant was featured on the front page of The Wall Street Journal. In recognition of Complainant’s, in 1999—only five years after its launch—Time Magazine named Mr. Bezos “Person of the Year.” The article described Complainant as the “company everyone wants to be like”. Complainant’s website is the 4th most-viewed website in the United States and the 12th most-viewed website globally, according to public statistics offered by Internet site ranking company similarweb. More than 29 million users have “liked” and more than 29 million users follow Complainant’s Facebook page. Complainant has more than 4 million followers on Twitter. Complainant has more than 300 million active customer accounts. Complainant has rights in the AMAZON mark through its registration with multiple agencies around the world, including in United States in 1997. The mark is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its AMAZON mark as they incorporate mark in its entirety and merely add descriptive or generic terms and a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s AMAZON mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is passing off as Complainant to promote competing services. The resolving websites display Complainant’s mark and logo. Respondent is also offering counterfeit products and potentially malicious downloads. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business by promoting competing services, as well as counterfeit products and malicious downloads. Additionally, Respondent capitalizes on Complainant’s goodwill in the AMAZON mark and falsely associates themselves with Complainant. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AMAZON mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its emails to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “Can you please help me to relinquish the domain? … You can back the domain to the real owner.” And: “I don’t need the domain. You can transfer it to the Complaint.” And: “Can you tell me how can I transfer the domain?” And: “I am Abdullah Sheikh / SiteGrounbd / MD Sobuz Shakh. … Now I want to Transfer the domain and I also want to Close The Case here. Now Please do the prefigure to transfer the domain and finish the case here. … I also transfer the domain to Amazon. Hope you guys do this as soon as possible.”
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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.
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."
In the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <amazontech.click> and <amazoearning.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: February 4, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page