DECISION

 

Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Privacy Protected / Privacy Protected by Hostnet

Claim Number: FA2309002063008

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Privacy Protected / Privacy Protected by Hostnet ("Respondent"), Netherlands.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <amazoncpf.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 22, 2023; Forum received payment on September 22, 2023.

 

On September 25, 2023, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <amazoncpf.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. 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 September 25, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 16, 2023 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@amazoncpf.com. Also on September 25, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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.

 

On October 17, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant and its predecessors in interest have used AMAZON and AMAZON.COM since 1995 in connection with online retail and related goods and services. Complainant asserts that its AMAZON mark has become famous, noting prior decisions under the Policy that have so found, and states that it "is consistently ranked as one of the most well-known and recognizable brands globally." Complainant claims worldwide rights in the AMAZON mark and a corresponding logo, and cites numerous United States trademark registrations dating back to 1997. Complainant's services include the Climate Pledge Friendly (CPF) program, which highlights products that meet various sustainability standards. Complainant owns United States trademark registrations for CLIMATE PLEDGE FRIENDLY in standard character form and for a related design mark.

 

The disputed domain name <amazoncpf.com> was registered in May 2023. The name is registered in the name of what the Panel infers to be a privacy registration service. It is being used for a website entitled "AmazonCPF." The website displays Complainant's AMAZON and CLIMATE PLEDGE FRIENDLY marks and logos, along with other content related to or suggesting an official connection with Complainant, without any disclaimers. The website states that Respondent charges €999 to assist customers in obtaining the Amazon CPF logo. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <amazoncpf.com> is confusingly similar to its AMAZON mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <amazoncpf.com> combines Complainant's registered AMAZON trademark with an abbreviated form of its CLIMATE PLEDGE FRIENDLY mark, adding the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's AMAZON mark. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Baris Tada / Baris Dariscu / Paul Barascu, FA 2010345 (Forum Sept. 28, 2022) (finding <amazoncw.com> and <amazonwt.com> confusingly similar to AMAZON). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered AMAZON mark without authorization, and it is being used for a misleading website that displays Complainant's marks and logos, and otherwise attempts to pass off as Complainant. Respondent has not come forward with evidence of bona fide use, and based upon the information available to the Panel, it appears very unlikely that Respondent's use of Complainant's marks could qualify as a nominative fair use. See generally WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, supra, § 2.8.1 (setting forth requirements for bona fide use, citing Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001)).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's famous AMAZON mark, doing so in the name of what the Panel infers to be a privacy registration service; and is using the domain name for a misleading website that displays Complainant's marks and logos, and otherwise attempts to pass off as Complainant, for Respondent's commercial gain. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. William Morocco, FA 2044858 (Forum June 20, 2023) (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Baris Tada / Baris Dariscu / Paul Barascu, supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <amazoncpf.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: October 17, 2023