DECISION

 

Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Asif Maruf

Claim Number: FA2503002147654

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <amazonelitepublisher.com> and <amazonepublisher.com>, registered with Cloudflare, Inc.

 

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 March 29, 2025; Forum received payment on March 29, 2025.

 

On April 1, 2025, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <amazonelitepublisher.com> and <amazonepublisher.com> domain names are registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, 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 April 2, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 22, 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@amazonelitepublisher.com, postmaster@amazonepublisher.com. Also on April 2, 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 April 23, 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.

 

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 <www.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 2 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 has rights in the mark AMAZON through its registration in the United States in 1997. The 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 mark as they incorporate the mark in its entirety, merely the adding generic/descriptive terms "elite publisher" or "epublisher", together with 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 mark 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; one includes a disclaimer that explicitly refers to Complainant. 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 promoting products and services that directly compete with Complainant. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights its mark. 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 mark AMAZON and uses it to market its online retail business, which includes providing publishing services. The mark was registered in 1997.

 

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

 

The disputed domain names were registered in 2024.

 

The resolving websites purport to offer services that compete with those of Complainant; one includes a disclaimer that explicitly refers to 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 disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's AMAZON mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive terms "elite publisher" or "epublisher", together with 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."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are 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 mark. 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 names lists the registrant as "Asif Maruf". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving websites display disclaimers. According to paragraph 3.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): "where the overall circumstances of a case point to the respondent's bad faith, the mere existence of a disclaimer cannot cure such bad faith". Further, paragraph 2.15 of the WIPO Overview states: "to support a claim to rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP, the use of a disputed domain name must in any event not be abusive of third-party trademark rights." For the reasons given below, the Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is abusive of Complainant's trademark rights; the Panel also finds bad faith registration and use. Consequently, the mere existence of the disclaimer does not establish that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

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: the disclaimer on one of the resolving websites explicitly refers to Complainant. 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).

 

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 <amazonelitepublisher.com> and <amazonepublisher.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: April 23, 2025