DECISION

 

Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. USMAN JAVAID / AMZN PUBLISHERS CENTRAL LLC / Zack Connor

Claim Number: FA2508002173176

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is USMAN JAVAID / AMZN PUBLISHERS CENTRAL LLC / Zack Connor ("Respondent"), Various Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <amznselfpublish.com> and <amzselfpublish.com> ('the Domain Names'), registered with NameCheap, Inc. and HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 22, 2025; Forum received payment on August 22, 2025.

 

On Aug 25, 2025; Aug 26, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. and HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <amznselfpublish.com> and <amzselfpublish.com> Domain Names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. and HOSTINGER operations, UAB have verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. and HOSTINGER operations, UAB registration agreements 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 August 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 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@amznselfpublish.com and postmaster@amzselfpublish.com. Also on August 27, 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 September 17, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 Domain Names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under 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 Complainant has linked WhoIs details for the Domain Names and shown that both Domain Names have the same e mail address and telephone number. The Complainant has also shown that the Domain Names are linked because they have been pointed to the same site, indeed to the extent that the same e mail is used info@amznselfpublish.com at the bottom of the content on both Domain Names. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or challenged any of these assertions. The Panel finds it more likely than not that the Domain Names have been registered by the same entity and this Complaint may proceed against all of them.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:

 

The Complainant owns:

 

The trade mark AMAZON registered, inter alia, in the USA for services relating to books since 1997;

 

the trade mark AMZ registered, inter alia, in the UK for services relating to books since 2022; and

the trade mark AMZN registered, inter alia, in the EU for services relating to books since 2009.

 

The Domain Names were both registered in 2025.

 

<Amzselfpublish.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark AMZ adding only the generic words 'self publish' and the gTLD .com which is insufficient to prevent said confusing similarity.

 

<Amznselfpublish.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark AMZN adding only the generic words 'self publish' and the gTLD .com which is insufficient to prevent said confusing similarity.

 

The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, is not commonly known by them and is not authorised by the Complainant.

 

The web site attached to the Domain Names used the Complainant's AMAZON mark in its masthead and similar orange, white and black trade dress to offer competing services. The <amznselfpublish.com> domain name has also been used by the Respondent in a non disclosure agreement promoting services of the Complainant's competitors. This was confusing and constituted impersonation of the Complainant and passing off and so is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. It was registration and use in opportunistic bad faith in actual knowledge of the rights of the Complainant, passing the Respondent off as the Complainant to cause confusion for commercial gain, disrupting the Complainant's competing business.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant owns:

 

the trade mark AMAZON registered, inter alia, in the USA for services relating to books since 1997;

the trade mark AMZ registered, inter alia, in the UK for services relating to books since 2022; and

the trade mark AMZN registered, inter alia, in the EU for services relating to books since 2009.

 

The Domain Names were both registered in 2025. They do not currently point to an active web site, but were both pointed to the same content that used the Complainant's AMAZON mark in its masthead and similar orange, white and black trade dress to offer competing services. The <amznselfpublish.com> domain name has also been used by the Respondent in a non disclosure agreement promoting services of the Complainant's competitors.

 

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

<Amzselfpublish.com> consists of the Complainant's AMZ mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the uk for services relating to books since 2022), the generic words 'self publish' and the gTLD .com.

 

<Amznselfpublish.com> consists of the Complainant's AMZN mark (which is registered, inter alia, in the EU for services relating to books since 2009), the generic words 'self publish' and the gTLD .com.

 

Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic words to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant).

 

A gTLD does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a Complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). The panel holds that the addition of the gTLD .com does not prevent confusing similarity between the Complainant's mark and the Domain Name.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the <amzselfpublish.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainants AMZ registered mark and the <amznselfpublish.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's AMZN registered mark.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied in respect to both Domain Names.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its marks. 

 

Although AMZN appears on the WhoIs details for <amznselfpublish.com>, this domain name was not registered until 2025 and there is no corroborating evidence to show that the Respondent is commonly known by this domain name. see Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as "Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund" in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name).

 

There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, commonly known by <amzselfpublish.com>. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

The use of the Domain Names was commercial, so that use is not legitimate non commercial fair use.

 

The web site attached to both Domain Names used the Complainant's AMAZON mark in its masthead and similar orange, white and black trade dress as the Complainant to suggest it was a site of the Complainant. It did not make it clear that there was no commercial connection with the Complainant and offered competing services. The <amznselfpublish.com> domain name has also been used by the Respondent in a non disclosure agreement promoting competing book distribution services. The Panel finds this use was deliberately confusing to impersonate the Complainant. As such it cannot have amounted to the bona fide offering of goods and services. (See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services). 

 

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as presented herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Names in relation to the Respondent's site was confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably have believed that it was connected to or approved by the Complainant as it used the Complainant's mark in its masthead and similar orange, black and white trade dress to suggest it was a site of the Complainant. The additional use of the <amznselfpublish.com> in a non disclosure agreement which promoted competing services was also confusing.

 

The use of similar trade dress to the Complainant shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights, business and products.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website (attached to both Domain Names) by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).

 

As such, the Panelist holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were both registered and used in bad faith and the Complainant has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under 4(b)(iii) and (iv) in relation to both Domain Names.

 

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 <amznselfpublish.com> and <amzselfpublish.com> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: September 17, 2025