DECISION

 

Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. dao chen / 陈 chendaoren

Claim Number: FA2409002115779

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., United States. Respondent is dao chen / 陈 chendaoren ("Respondent"), China and United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <amazon3213.xyz> and <amazon3369.xyz>, registered with Dynadot 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 16, 2024; Forum received payment on September 16, 2024.

 

On September 18, 2024, Dynadot Inc confirmed by email to Forum that the <amazon3213.xyz> and <amazon3369.xyz> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 18, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 8, 2024 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@amazon3213.xyz and postmaster@amazon3369.xyz. Also on September 18, 2024, 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 registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On October 9, 2024, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are registered by the same individual 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 name holder."

 

The domain names are nearly identical to one another, as are the websites to which they resolve. The registrants' names are similar and they share the same email address; the remaining registration information is either incomplete or obviously fictitious. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it appropriate to treat the registrants as a single person or entity.

 

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 operates an affiliate marketing program that enables participants to earn commissions, and a webcrawler named "Amazonbot" that Complainant uses to improve its services.

 

The disputed domain names <amazon3213.xyz> and <amazon3369.xyz> were registered in July 2024. The names are registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain names are being used for virtually identical websites entitled "AmazonBOT" that prominently display Complainant's AMAZON logo and that prompt users for an account name and password. Respondent is identified only as "AmazonBot," with no disclaimers or other efforts to distinguish Respondent from Complainant. The websites purport to "help[] Amazon.com merchants around the world get more sales on their orders and increase browsing data on Amazon's online store." Complainant alleges that the websites are designed to phish for account credentials, disseminate malicious software, or promise commissions that are never paid, and contends that even if the commissions are real, Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to promote competing services is not a bona fide or legitimate use. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that each of the disputed domain names <amazon3213.xyz> and <amazon3369.xyz> is confusingly similar to its AMAZON mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are 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/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated Aug. 30, 2024), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; 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

Each of the disputed domain names <amazon3213.xyz> and <amazon3369.xyz> incorporates Complainant's registered AMAZON trademark, adding a four-digit number and the ".xyz" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Gavin Zhao / Shenzhen AI Youle Network Ltd., FA 2054884 (Forum Aug. 22, 2023) (finding <amazon001.com> confusingly similar to AMAZON); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Meng Li / Chen Xiansheng / Chenxiansheng / Manlidy GNN / Luoli / Luo Li, FA 2007990 (Forum Sept. 29, 2022) (finding <amazon14.com> and similar domain names confusingly similar to AMAZON); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Hilbert Hasudungan / 300domaincom, FA 1858026 (Forum Oct. 10, 2019) (finding <amazonbook.xyz> confusingly similar to AMAZON). The Panel considers the disputed domain names 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 names, 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 names incorporate Complainant's registered mark without authorization. They are being used for misleading websites that display Complainant's mark and logo and otherwise attempt to pass off as Complainant or an affiliated entity, promoting competing services and likely supporting fraudulent activity. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Privacy Protected / Privacy Protected by Hostnet, FA 2063008 (Forum Oct. 17, 2023) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests in similar circumstances); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Gavin Zhao / Shenzhen AI Youle Network Ltd., supra (same); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Meng Li / Chen Xiansheng / Chenxiansheng / Manlidy GNN / Luoli / Luo Li, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, 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 names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a 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 used a privacy registration service and fictitious underlying registration information to register two domain names incorporating Complainant's famous mark, and is using the domain names for misleading websites that display Complainant's mark and logo and otherwise attempt to pass off as Complainant or an affiliated entity, promoting competing services and likely supporting fraudulent activity. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Privacy Protected / Privacy Protected by Hostnet, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Gavin Zhao / Shenzhen AI Youle Network Ltd., supra (same); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Meng Li / Chen Xiansheng / Chenxiansheng / Manlidy GNN / Luoli / Luo Li, supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

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 <amazon3213.xyz> and <amazon3369.xyz> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: October 9, 2024