DECISION

 

Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico

Claim Number: FA2502002140478

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico ("Respondent"), Panama.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <amazonpublishingcentral.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 17, 2025; Forum received payment on February 17, 2025.

 

On February 17, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <amazonpublishingcentral.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 17, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 10, 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@amazonpublishingcentral.com. Also on February 17, 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 March 11, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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

The Complainant has used its trademark AMAZON since 1995, for retail store services via the web site connected with the domain name <amazon.com>. Today, Complainant is a leading retailer offering a wide variety of products and services, and the fourth most-viewed website in the United States. Due to extensive advertising, use, and commercial success, the AMAZON trademark has become famous and is consistently ranked as one of the most well-known and recognizable brands globally.

 

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 and AMAZON.COM trademarks are registered in the United States and elsewhere around the world. The disputed domain name is confusing similar to Complainant's AMAZON and AMAZON.COM trademarks.

Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; Respondent is not making noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name; and Respondent has never been legitimately known as or referred to as AMAZON or AMAZON.COM. As a result, Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, as legitimate interests are defined in the Policy.

Respondent is not commonly known by AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, or any variation thereof. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way. Respondent is not licensed by Complainant to use Complainant's marks.

The disputed domain name redirects to bogus Microsoft and McAfee-branded antivirus warnings which falsely appear to be generated by a visitor's own PCs.  This is not a bona fide or legitimate use.

Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.  Respondent has been previously held to have actual knowledge of Complainant's AMAZON and/or AMAZON.COM trademarks in similar domain disputes.  Furthermore, Respondent could not have been unaware of Complainant's famous AMAZON trademark and its association with publishing services when it registered a trademark combining these terms. Accordingly, it is clear that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights and intended to create an association with Complainant and its products and services.

Respondent has attempted to commercially benefit, unfairly and opportunistically, from the goodwill associated with Complainant's marks, and this conduct of diversion shows bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

Finally, Respondent is a notorious cyber-squatter that has been found to have acted in bad faith in hundreds of prior UDRP decisions, including at least two decisions involving Complainant's AMAZON trademark. This evidences a pattern of conduct and is further evidence of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of several U.S. trademark registrations, including, but not limited to:

 

No. 2,078,496 AMAZON (word), registered on July 15, 1997 for services in Intl Class 42;

No. 3,868,195 AMAZON (word), registered on October 26, 2010 for services in Intl Class 45; and

No. 2,167,345 AMAZON.COM (word), registered on June 23, 1998 for services in Intl Class 35.

 

The disputed domain name <amazonpublishingcentral.com> was registered on June 21, 2024.

 

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 Complainant claims to have rights in the AMAZON and AMAZON.COM trademark through their registration with the USPTO. Registration of a trademark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy."). Additionally, an assignment of a trademark is sufficient to demonstrate rights in a trademark. See Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Golden Beauty / goldendoorsalon, FA 1668748 (Forum May 7, 2016) (finding rights in the GOLDEN DOOR mark where Complainant provided evidence of assignment of the mark, naming Complainant as assignee). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with a copy of its USPTO registration for the AMAZON trademark (e.g. Reg. No. 2,078,496, registered on July 15, 1997) and AMAZON.COM trademark (e.g. Reg. No. 2,167,345 AMAZON.COM, registered on June 23, 1998).

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the AMAZON and AMAZON.COM trademarks per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusing similar to Complainant's AMAZON and AMAZON.COM trademarks. Here, the Panel notes that Respondent's <amazonpublishingcentral.com> domain name clearly starts with AMAZONE, followed by the generic words "publishing", and "central", and the gTLD .com.

Registration of a domain name that contains a trademark and adds a generic term and a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the <starbucksreal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as "the addition of the generic term 'real'  to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy."); see also See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them."). 

 

In this case, it is also noted that the added words "publishing" and "cental" is closely related to Complainant's services, and although the added gTLD normally is not considered – in this case it may be seen as referring to the trademark AMAZON.COM. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <amazonpublishingcentral.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AMAZON and AMAZON.COM trademarks per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). 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 argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <amazonpublishingcentral.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the AMAZON or AMAZON.COM trademarks or register domain names using Complainant's trademarks. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See 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)"). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico" and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the AMAZON or AMAZON.COM trademarks or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

As shown by Complainant, Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, it resolves to bogus Microsoft and McAfee-branded antivirus warnings which falsely appear to be generated by a visitor's own PCs. Such use can never be the base of legitimate interest.

 

Thus, the Panel find that Respondent does not provide a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, as Respondent has been previously held to have actual knowledge of Complainant's AMAZON and/or AMAZON.COM trademarks in similar domain disputes, and that Respondent could not have been unaware of Complainant's famous AMAZON trademark and its association with publishing services when it registered a trademark combining these terms. Further, Complainant notes that Respondent is a notorious cyber-squatter that has been found to have acted in bad faith in hundreds of prior UDRP decisions.

 

The Panel agrees with the Complainant's conclusion, based on the fact that i) Respondent has indeed been involved as respondent in many UDRP decisions, and have never replied or claimed any rights in any of those disputes, and ii) in this particular case also obviously know the trademark rights of Complainant, as Respondent has been involved in at least two UDRP cases with Respondent before this dispute.

 

The Panel therefore find that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

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 <amazonpublishingcentral.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Panelist

Dated: March 25, 2025