DECISION

 

Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Saqib Nizam / Razia Khan / Salman Saad

Claim Number: FA2502002138614

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Saqib Nizam / Razia Khan / Salman Saad ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <amazonselfbookpublishers.com>, <amazonpublishingsgroup.com>, <amzkdppublishers.com>, <amazonkindledirectpublisher.co>, and <amazonbookwriters.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 4, 2025; Forum received payment on February 4, 2025.

 

On February 4, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <amazonselfbookpublishers.com>, <amazonpublishingsgroup.com>, <amzkdppublishers.com>, <amazonkindledirectpublisher.co>, and <amazonbookwriters.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 February 6, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 26, 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@amazonselfbookpublishers.com, postmaster@amazonpublishingsgroup.com, postmaster@amzkdppublishers.com, postmaster@amazonkindledirectpublisher.co, and postmaster@amazonbookwriters.com. Also on February 6, 2025, 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 February 27, 2025, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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 the WHOIS e-mail contact for all the disputed domains is the same; nominal registrants Razia Khan, Saqib Nizam, and Salman Saad were previously held to be aliases for the same person in a previous UDRP case; the nominal registrant for <amazonpublishingsgroup.com>, <amzkdppublishers.com>, and <amazonbookwriters.com> is the same, "Saqib Nazim," and the WHOIS particulars for these domains are the same, other than the phone number for <amazonbookwriters.com>; the resolving websites for <amazonselfbookpublishers.com> and <amzkdppublishers.com> provide the same contact number; the resolving websites for <amazonpublishingsgroup.com>, <amazonkindldirectpublisher.co>, and <amazonbookwriters.com> provide the same contact number; the resolving websites for <amazonselfbookpublishers.com>, <amazonpublishingsgroup.com>, and <amzkdppublishers.com> are substantially similar including but not limited to identical headings (e.g., "Ghostwriting, Publishing, and Editing Services, Your Words, Our Expertise" and "Our Army of Clientele") and substantially identical graphics. 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 all the contested domain names, and the registrants are collectively referred to as "Respondent".

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is a leading online retailer offering a wide variety of products and services. 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 <amazon.com>. Today, Complainant is a leading retailer offering a wide variety of products and services. <amazon.com> is the 3rd most-viewed website in the United States and the 7th most-viewed website globally according to public statistics offered by SimilarWeb. More than 30 million users have "liked" and more than 29 million users follow Complainant's Facebook page. Complainant has more than 6 million followers on X.com. Complainant's services include Amazon Publishing which launched in 2009 and publishes fiction, nonfiction, and children's books by emerging, bestselling, and critically acclaimed authors in digital, print, and audio formats. Complainant's Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) service allows authors to self-publish print and digital books and reach millions of readers around the world on Amazon. Since 2007, Kindle Direct Publishing has helped launch millions of successful careers in self-publishing. The KDP Select Global Fund, which provides independent authors and publishers additional promotional features, has provided more than $2.2 billion in royalties to participants. More than 400,000 people follow Complainant's KDP Facebook account and more than 80,000 people follow Complainant's KDP X.com account. Complainant has rights in the marks AMAZON and AMZ marks through their registration, respectively, in the United States in 1997, and in the UK in 2021. The AMAZON mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its AMAZON or AMZ marks as they incorporate one of the marks in its entirety, merely adding generic/descriptive terms and/or the letters "kdp" (which refers to Complainant's Kindle Direct Publishing services), together with the ".co" country-code top-level domain ("ccTLD"), or the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its marks and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving websites purport to provide publishing assistance for authors that compete with those of Complainant; they display Complainant's marks and logos. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant by using Complainant's marks and referring to services offered by Complainant under that mark. Respondent also uses the disputed domain names to promote products and services that directly compete with Complainant. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights its marks. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has registered trademarks for the marks AMAZON and AMZ and uses them to market its online retail business, which includes providing publishing services. The marks was were registered in, respectively, 1997 and 2021.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain names were registered in 2023 and 2024.

 

The resolving websites purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant; three of the resolving websites display Complainant's marks and logos.

 

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 disputed domain names each incorporate one of Complainant's AMAZON or AMZ marks in its entirety, merely adding generic/descriptive terms and/or the letters "kdp" (which refers to Complainant's Kindle Direct Publishing services), together with the ".co" country-code top-level domain ("ccTLD"), or the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), such changes generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the marks it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.'  These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."); see also Rockwell Automation v. Zhao Ke, FA 1760051 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) ("The disputed domain name <rockwellautomation.co> corresponds to Complainant's registered ROCKWELL AUTOMATION mark, with the space omitted and the ".co" top-level domain appended thereto. These alterations do not distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for purposes of the Policy."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Saqib Nizam / Razia Khan / Salman Saad". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Respondent uses the disputed domain names to offer competing goods and services. Use of a disputed domain name that incorporates a well-known mark to offer competing services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) ("use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving websites offer products and services that compete with those of Complainant. Past panels have found bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent appropriates a complainant's mark to divert the complainant's customers to the respondent's competing business. See Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent's competing website); see also Univ. of Texas Sys. v. Smith, FA 1195696 (Forum July 7, 2008) (finding that using the resolving website to divert Internet users to the complainant's competitors constituted bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) ("Respondent is appropriating Complainant's mark to divert Complainant's customers to Respondent's competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."). Thus the Panel finds bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's marks: three of the resolving websites display Complainant's marks distinctive logos. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the marks prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Further, Complainant provides evidence that Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in numerous prior UDRP proceedings. This is evidence that respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See NIKE, Inc., and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Emile Boulanger, FA 1732458 (Forum July 3, 2017) (finding that registration of several infringing domain names in a case satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) ("The record contains evidence of Respondents previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

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 <amazonselfbookpublishers.com>, <amazonpublishingsgroup.com>, <amzkdppublishers.com>, <amazonkindledirectpublisher.co>, and <amazonbookwriters.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: February 27, 2025