Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. 706 Marketing
Claim Number: FA2303002036844
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is 706 Marketing (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bitcoinprime-official.com> and <bitcoinprime.live>, registered with 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 conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 22, 2023; Forum received payment on March 22, 2023.
On March 23, 2023, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bitcoinprime-official.com> and <bitcoinprime.live> domain names are registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the 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 March 28, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 17, 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 the attention of postmaster@bitcoinprime-official.com, postmaster@bitcoinprime.live. Also on March 28, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was delivered to Respondent via post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 11, 2023.
On April 14, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is an online retailer that provides a subscription service for free shipping, along with other benefits, under the name and mark PRIME.
Complainant holds a registration for the PRIME service mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 5,218,535, registered June 6, 2017.
Respondent registered the domain name <bitcoinprime-official.com> on April 18, 2022 and the domain name <bitcoinprime.live> on March 23, 2021.
Both domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s PRIME mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by either of the domain names.
Respondent is not an authorized vendor, supplier or distributor of any of Complainant’s goods or services.
Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise authorized by Complainant to use the PRIME mark.
Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The domain names initially resolve to warning pages indicating that the resolving websites have “been reported as unsafe” and “could lead you to lose personal info, financial data, and even money.”
Bypassing these warnings leads to websites that promote software/services which purportedly facilitate automated bitcoin trading and require a minimum deposit of $250.
Clicking on “OPEN AN ACCOUNT” at <bitcoinprime.live> produces a warning that recites: “Suspected Phishing.”
Respondent promotes these websites using imitations of Complainant’s logo in its masthead and graphics, accompanied by the same font and stylization used by Complainant to display its PRIME mark, and by the same black and orange coloring as is found in Complainant’s logo.
Respondent uses the domain names to pass itself off as Complainant online in order to mislead and confuse Internet users as to a possible association with Complainant and its business and to profit from that confusion.
Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the domain names.
Respondent’s use of the domain names disrupts Complainant’s business.
Respondent knew of Complainant’s rights in the PRIME mark prior to registering the domain names.
Respondent provided false contact information to its Registrar when it registered the domain names.
Respondent both registered and now uses the domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent has filed a Response to the Complaint in which it declares that:
The Respondent elects to surrender both domains in dispute to Complainant….
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following in order to obtain from a Panel a decision that a domain name be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the same domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
Further, Policy ¶ 3(a) provides for the transfer of a domain name registration upon the written instructions of the parties to a UDRP proceeding without the need for otherwise required findings and conclusions. See, for example, Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004:
In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant …. 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 … with the Policy.
See also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum Jun. 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 [sic] to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.
DECISION
Respondent does not contest the allegations of the Complaint. Neither does it contest Complainant’s request that the disputed domain names be transferred to Complainant. Rather, in the face of Complainant’s demand that the domain names be transferred to it, Respondent has expressed in writing its willingness to surrender them. Thus the parties have effectively agreed in writing to a transfer of the domain names from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings.
It is therefore Ordered that the domain names <bitcoinprime-official.com> and <bitcoinprime.live> be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: April 17, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page