DECISION

 

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Jason Mosley

Claim Number: FA2508002174341

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Bradley L. Cohn of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Jason Mosley ("Respondent"), Arkansas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <sales-amd.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 29, 2025; Forum received payment on August 29, 2025.

 

On September 1, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <sales-amd.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 September 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 23, 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@sales-amd.com. Also on September 3, 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 24, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., manufactures and distributes computer hardware and software, semiconductor devices, microprocessor chips, and related goods and services. Complainant has rights in the AMD mark based upon registration in more than sixty jurisdictions, inter alia, with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,449,383, registered on July 28, 1987). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AMD mark as it contains Complainant's mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term "sales," a hyphen, and the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's AMD mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name as part of a phishing scheme, to pass itself off as AMD via emails to online content creators with the apparent objective of obtaining sensitive personal or business information from them. Respondent is inactively holding the disputed domain name, which resolves to a landing page featuring numerous hyperlinks, including for computer hardware products that directly compete with AMD's computer hardware products.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name to host email that is ultimately used to perpetrate fraud on third parties. The disputed domain name resolves to a landing page displaying links to third-party websites offering competing computer hardware products, which is indicative of bad faith. Respondent necessarily had actual knowledge of AMD and its AMD trademark and was attempting to take advantage of the value and goodwill associated with the AMD mark when sending fraudulent emails to online content creators, pretending to be from AMD, and proposing collaboration partnerships, with the apparent objective of obtaining sensitive personal or business information from them. Respondent's submission of false WHOIS information is further indicative of bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on July 23, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the AMD mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,449,383, registered on July 28, 1987).

 

3. Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with an email address, coupled with the sender designation "AMD Team," to target Complainant's potential customers such as online content creators. In particular, Respondent impersonated Complainant by sending deceptive emails purporting to invite recipients to execute a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) through a DocuSign process, thereby inducing disclosure of sensitive information.

 

4. The disputed domain name resolves to a landing page displaying links to third-party websites offering competing computer hardware products.

 

5. Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a fictitious, non-existent physical address.

 

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

Complainant asserts rights to the AMD mark based upon registration in more than sixty jurisdictions, inter alia, with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,449,383, registered on July 28, 1987). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is considered a valid showing of rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the AMD mark with the USPTO and other agencies around the world, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <sales-amd.com> contains Complainant's mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term "sales," a hyphen, and the ".com" gTLD. The addition of a descriptive term, a hyphen, and a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant's mark. See Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. v. Ant Fin, FA 1759326 (Forum Jan. 2, 2018) ("Respondent's <antfinancial-investorrelations.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ANT FINANCIAL mark.  It incorporates the mark entirely.  It adds a hyphen, the descriptive terms "investor relations," and the ".com" gTLD, but these additions are insufficient to distinguish the Domain name from complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Eastman Chem. Co. v. Patel, FA 524752 (Forum Sept. 7, 2005) ("Therefore, the Panel concludes that the addition of a term descriptive of Complainant's business, the addition of a hyphen, and the addition of the gTLD '.com' are insufficient to distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's mark."). 

 

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term "sales," a hyphen, and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com" to form the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AMD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "Jason Mosley" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the disputed domain name instead resolves to a page displaying links related to Complainant's goods and services, as well as those of its competitors. Where a respondent uses a domain name to redirect users to competing third-party services, panels have consistently found that such conduct does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See TGI Friday's of Minnesota, Inc. v. Tulip Company / Tulip Trading Company, FA 1691369 (Forum Oct. 10, 2016) ("Respondent uses the domain for a parking page displaying various links that consumers are likely to associate with Complainant, but that simply redirect to additional advertisements and links that divert traffic to third-party websites not affiliated with Complainant…The Panel here finds that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.").

 

The Panel notes that Complainant has provided a screenshot showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a page containing links to advertisements promoting products that directly compete with those of Complainant, including "Integrated Li Accelerator," "Microcontroller Cortex," and "Barebone Server."

 

Furthermore, the Panel notes that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with an email address, coupled with the sender designation "AMD Team," to target Complainant's potential customers such as online content creators. In particular, Respondent impersonated Complainant by sending deceptive emails purporting to invite recipients to execute a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) through a DocuSign process, thereby inducing disclosure of sensitive information.

 

The Panel concludes that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name both (i) to host hyperlinks to products directly competing with those of Complainant and (ii) to engage in a phishing scheme does not constitute 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 established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the absence of any Response or evidence to the contrary, the Panel determines that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent unfairly disrupts Complainant's business by employing the disputed domain name for a pay-per-click website displaying sponsored ads for competing websites, thereby competing with Complainant for Internet traffic. The Panel finds that use of a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing goods or services can be evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), as well as an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) ("Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another."); see also American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum Jan. 8, 2018) ("Respondent's hosting of links to Complainant's competitors demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the <geddiploma.org> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)").

 

As previously noted, Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name resolving to a page displaying links to advertisements promoting products that directly compete with those of Complainant, including "Integrated Li Accelerator," "Microcontroller Cortex," and "Barebone Server." The Panel finds that Respondent's activities disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to competitors' websites, thereby obtaining commercial benefits. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Next, Complainant contends that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with phishing activities. As noted above, Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with an email address, coupled with the sender designation "AMD Team," to target Complainant's potential customers such as online content creators. In particular, Respondent impersonated Complainant by sending deceptive emails purporting to invite recipients to execute a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) through a DocuSign process, thereby inducing disclosure of sensitive information.

 

The Panel considers such conduct to be indicative of a fraudulent phishing scheme designed to misappropriate sensitive information by misrepresenting the identity of the sender. The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct, by leveraging the goodwill associated with Complainant and Complainant's marks, disrupts Complainant's business and is intended to derive commercial benefit. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant also contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AMD mark. The Panel notes that although 'constructive notice' alone is insufficient for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, it may find actual knowledge through various factors such as the manner of use of the disputed domain name, the notoriety of a complainant's mark, and other relevant circumstances.

 

The Panel notes that Complainant has spent substantial sums advertising and promoting its products under the AMD trademark and has generated billions of dollars in revenue from the sale of AMD products. Based in part on its decades of exclusive and extensive use, including substantial advertising and sales, the AMD name and trademark became a distinctive trademark signifying AMD prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant, that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AMD mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 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 <sales-amd.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: September 25, 2025