DECISION

 

Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Mirza Waqas Baig / MARTECHSOL

Claim Number: FA2511002190082

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Mirza Waqas Baig / MARTECHSOL ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <kindleamazonpublishings.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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 20, 2025; Forum received payment on November 20, 2025.

 

On November 20, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kindleamazonpublishings.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 November 24, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 15, 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@kindleamazonpublishings.com. Also on November 24, 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 December 16, 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, Amazon Technologies, Inc., is a leading global retailer offering a broad range of products and services, including Amazon Publishing, which was launched in 2009. Complainant's Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing service enables authors to self-publish both print and digital books. Since 2007, Kindle Direct Publishing has enabled millions of successful self-publishing careers. Complainant holds rights in the AMAZON mark registered with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,078,496, registered July 15, 1997) and in the KINDLE mark registered with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,146,885, registered February 21, 2017). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AMAZON and KINDLE marks, because it wholly incorporates the marks merely adding the descriptive or generic term "publishings" and the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its AMAZON and KINDLE marks in connection with the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but rather is using it to falsely represent itself as Complainant, to offer Respondent's own competing self-publishing services, and to promote those of third parties.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's use of Complainant's AMAZON and KINDLE trademarks to offer competing publishing services or to promote those of third parties is likely to divert Internet users for commercial gain and disrupt Complainant's business. Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights constitutes further evidence of bad faith registration and use. WHOIS indicates that Respondent's address is in a city that does not exist, namely, Karachi, Florida, USA.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on June 27, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the AMAZON mark by virtue of its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,078,496, registered July 15, 1997) and in the KINDLE mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,146,885, registered February 21, 2017).

 

3. The landing page resolving to the disputed domain name promotes purported publishing assistance for authors. Respondent refers to itself as "Kindle Amazon Publishing" and "Kindle Amazon Publishings." Respondent's masthead logo incorporates AMAZON, KINDLE, and Complainant's Smile logo. Respondent's logo also utilizes black and orange, mimicking the same colors as Complainant's Amazon logo. Complainant's trademarks are displayed as Respondent's sole brand and identity, including in the copyright legend, absent any disclaimers or other indications of source.

 

4. Respondent also features logos of competing e-book providers, including Apple's iBookstore, Barnes & Noble, and Google Play.

 

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 in the AMAZON mark based upon its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,078,496, registered July 15, 1997) and in the KINDLE trademark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,146,885, registered February 21, 2017). Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark. As Complainant has provided evidence of valid trademark registrations with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <kindleamazonpublishings.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant's AMAZON and KINDLE marks, as it wholly incorporates the marks merely adding the descriptive or generic term "publishings" and the ".com" gTLD. Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the mere addition of descriptive or generic terms and a gTLD to a complainant's mark is insufficient to distinguish a domain name from the mark. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AMAZON and KINDLE marks 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 interests in the disputed domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, has not been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and is not affiliated with Complainant. The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "Mirza Waqas Baig / MARTECHSOL" as the registrant. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead is engaging in passing off. The Panel observes that the landing page resolving to the disputed domain name promotes purported publishing assistance for authors. Respondent refers to itself as "Kindle Amazon Publishing" and "Kindle Amazon Publishings." Respondent's masthead logo incorporates AMAZON, KINDLE, and Complainant's Smile logo. Respondent's logo also utilizes black and orange, mimicking the same colors as Complainant's Amazon logo. Complainant's trademarks are displayed as Respondent's sole brand and identity, including in the copyright legend, absent any disclaimers or other indications of source. The Panel further observes that Respondent also displays logos of competing e-book providers, including Apple's iBookstore, Barnes & Noble, and Google Play.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent is impersonating Complainant in order to offer its own competing self-publishing services and to promote those of third parties. Such use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and Respondent therefore lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

As Respondent has failed to submit a Response or otherwise rebut the prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is creating a false impression that its domain name or services originate from, are approved by, or are otherwise affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's use of Complainant's AMAZON and KINDLE trademarks to offer competing publishing services or to promote those of third parties is likely to mislead Internet users and disrupt Complainant's business.

 

The Panel observes that under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and offer similar or competing services may constitute evidence of bad faith attraction for commercial gain. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) ("finding bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that passed off as the complainant and offered online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant's business").

 

As previously noted, the landing page masthead logo on the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's AMAZON and KINDLE trademarks together with descriptive terms. The masthead logo mimics the font of Complainant's Kindle logo. Respondent's landing page and masthead logo also feature black or dark grey and orange coloring, replicating the distinctive black-and-orange color scheme Complainant uses in its branding.

 

The Panel further notes that Respondent's website promotes third-party self-publishing services, including those offered by competitors. Respondent displays logos for competing e-book providers, including Apple's iBookstore, Barnes & Noble, and Google Play. The Panel finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and to offer online self-publishing services in direct competition with Complainant's business, by displaying marks that are confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks. Moreover, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves features marks confusingly similar to Complainant's AMAZON and KINDLE trademarks and promotes Respondent's competing services. The Panel concludes that such conduct of impersonating Complainant and promoting third-party services disrupts Complainant's business by diverting Internet users who are seeking Complainant to Respondent's and third parties' competing platforms for commercial gain. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv).

 

Complainant further claims that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights at the time of registration. Given that Respondent purports to provide author self-publishing services, it is reasonable to infer that Respondent could not have been unaware of Complainant's well-known publishing and self-publishing trademarks, particularly in view of Respondent's mimicry of Amazon's branding elements.

 

The Panel notes that Complainant is a leading global retailer offering a broad array of products and services. Amazon.com is the 3rd most-viewed website in the United States and the 8th most-viewed website globally according to public statistics provided by SimilarWeb. Complainant has more than 29 million followers on Facebook and nearly 6 million followers on X. Complainant's Amazon Shopping app on Google Play has more than 500 million downloads. Since 2007, Complainant has helped launch millions of successful self-publishing careers. The Kindle Direct Publishing Select Global Fund, which provides independent authors and publishers with additional promotional features, has paid out more than $2.2 billion in royalties to participants. Complainant's Kindle Direct Publishing Facebook page has over 400,000 followers, and its Twitter/X account has more than 80,000 followers.

 

In view of Complainant's extensive advertising, commercial success, and wide public recognition, the AMAZON and KINDLE trademarks had acquired significant goodwill prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore infers, in light of the fame of Complainant's marks and the manner in which the disputed domain name is used, that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AMAZON and KINDLE marks at the time of registration, 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 <kindleamazonpublishings.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: December 16, 2025