DECISION

 

Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Chessey Chel

Claim Number: FA2412002131131

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Chessey Chel ("Respondent"), Singapore.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <awsaiofficial.net>, <awsaipresale.com>, <awsaipresale.org>, <aws-official.live>, <awsofficial.net>, <awspresale.org>, <aws-presale.org>, <aws-presales.org>, <awswallet.org> and <official-aws.org>, registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 24, 2024; Forum received payment on December 24, 2024.

 

On December 26, 2024, NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <awsaiofficial.net>, <awsaipresale.com>, <awsaipresale.org>, <aws-official.live>, <awsofficial.net>, <awspresale.org>, <aws-presale.org>, <aws-presales.org>, <awswallet.org> and <official-aws.org> domain names are registered with NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the NICENIC INTERNATIONAL GROUP CO., LIMITED 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 December 27, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 16, 2025 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@awsaiofficial.net, postmaster@awsaipresale.com, postmaster@awsaipresale.org, postmaster@aws-official.live, postmaster@awsofficial.net, postmaster@awspresale.org, postmaster@aws-presale.org, postmaster@aws-presales.org, postmaster@awswallet.org and postmaster@official-aws.org. Also on December 27, 2024, 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.

 

On January 17, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.       Respondent's <awsaiofficial.net>, <awsaipresale.com>, <awsaipresale.org>, <aws-official.live>, <awsofficial.net>, <awspresale.org>, <aws-presale.org>, <aws-presales.org>, <awswallet.org> and <official-aws.org> domain names (the "disputed domain names") are confusingly similar to Complainant's AWS mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is the well-known Amazon Technologies, Inc. Complainant holds a registration for its AWS (for Amazon Web Services) mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 5,676,725, registered on February 12, 2019).

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain names between June 24 and December 12, 2024, and uses it them pass off as and compete with Complainant.

 

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 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the AWS mark through registrations with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.").

 

Respondent's <awsaiofficial.net>, <awsaipresale.com>, <awsaipresale.org>, <aws-official.live>, <awsofficial.net>, <awspresale.org>, <aws-presale.org>, <aws-presales.org>, <awswallet.org> and <official-aws.org> domain names all use the AWS mark and simply add generic words, a hyphen in some, and a gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also Chernow Commc'ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding "that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <awsaiofficial.net>, <awsaipresale.com>, <awsaipresale.org>, <aws-official.live>, <awsofficial.net>, <awspresale.org>, <aws-presale.org>, <aws-presales.org>, <awswallet.org> and <official-aws.org>  domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's AWS mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the AWS mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as "Chessey Chel". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent also fails to use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent is using the domain names to pass off Complainant. Complainant provides screenshots showing that Respondent uses some of the disputed domain names to pass off as and compete with Complainant, using Complainant's mark, logo and images. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business); see also Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) ("Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.")

 

Complainant also demonstrates that some of the disputed domain names resolve to various error or warning messages. The Panel finds that such use is also not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith to pass off as Complainant for Respondent's financial gain. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. MIZHAR salem, FA 1774836 (Forum Apr. 4, 2018) (finding bad faith in registration of disputed domains because "[u]sing a disputed domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant for commercial gain . . . can evidence bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)").

 

Complainant also claims that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AWS mark when it registered the disputed domain name, as Respondent uses Complainant's marks and images on the resolving website to directly compete with Complainant. The Panel agrees and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Charter Commc'ns Holding Co. v. MIZHAR salem, FA 1774836 (Forum April 4, 2018) (finding bad faith registration of the domain name <charterspectrumonline.com> because "[a]ctual knowledge of a complainant's mark prior to registering a confusingly similar domain name can evidence bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

The Panel also finds that Respondent registered and uses the 10 disputed domain names in bad faith as part of a pattern of bad faith, as Respondent has been the subject of 4 previous adverse UDRP rulings on domain names using Complainant's AWS mark. Therefore, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Mishal, FA 1370342 (Forum March 16, 2011) (registration of nine domain names incorporating Complainant's mark is evidence of a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <awsaiofficial.net>, <awsaipresale.com>, <awsaipresale.org>, <aws-official.live>, <awsofficial.net>, <awspresale.org>, <aws-presale.org>, <aws-presales.org>, <awswallet.org> and <official-aws.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: January 19, 2025