DECISION

 

Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Maxx Jaffer / SONYA HERBURGER / John Miller / Fahad Khan

Claim Number: FA2601002200774

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Maxx Jaffer / SONYA HERBURGER / John Miller / Fahad Khan ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <amazonbookserviceprovider.com>, <amazonkdppublication.org>, <amazonkdppublishing.org> and <amzpublishingservices.co> ("Domain Names"), registered with Spaceship, Inc., Tucows Domains Inc. and NameCheap, 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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 20, 2026; Forum received payment on January 20, 2026.

 

On January 21 and 22, 2026, Spaceship, Inc., Tucows Domains Inc. and NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <amazonbookserviceprovider.com>, <amazonkdppublication.org>, <amazonkdppublishing.org> and <amzpublishingservices.co> domain names are registered with Spaceship, Inc., Tucows Domains Inc. and NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Each of the Registrars have verified that Respondent is bound by their 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 January 22, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 11, 2026 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@amazonbookserviceprovider.com, postmaster@amazonkdppublication.org, postmaster@amazonkdppublishing.org, and postmaster@amzpublishingservices.co. Also on January 22, 2026, 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 February 12, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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: MUTLIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases.  Paragraph 3(c) of 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." 

 

Complainant contends that the registrants are related because the Domain Names each resolve to websites that are substantially the same. These websites (collectively "Respondent's Websites") operate on the same business model, contain in many instances identical text, contain identical images and in other instances substantially similar graphics. This evidence, in the Panel's opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that four unconnected entities would register four similar domain names and each of them resolve to strikingly similar websites using the same business model.

 

In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as "Respondent" in this Decision.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a leading retailer offering a wide variety of products and services around the globe. In particular, under its AMAZON mark, KDP mark and a variety of related marks, Complainant has offered a variety of publishing services for aspiring authors connected to its Kindle product, including Amazon Publishing and Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing. Complainant has rights in the AMAZON mark based on registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 2,078,496 registered July 15, 1997). Complainant also has rights in the AMZ mark and KDP mark based on registration with United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office ("UKIPO") (e.g., Reg. No. UK00003731802 registered March 18, 2022 and Reg. No. UK00004156441 registered April 25, 2025).  Respondent's amazonbookserviceprovider.com>, <amazonkdppublication.org>, <amazonkdppublishing.org> and <amzpublishingservices.co> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's AMAZON, AMZ or KDP marks, each incorporating at least one of Complainant's AMAZON, AMZ or KDP marks and adding generic terms and a generic top-level domain ("gTLD") or country-code top-level domain ("ccTLD").

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the amazonbookserviceprovider.com>, <amazonkdppublication.org>, <amazonkdppublishing.org> and <amzpublishingservices.co> domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by any of the Domain Names and is neither an authorized user or licensee of Complainant's AMAZON mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use any of the Domain Names for either a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead uses each of the Domain Names to resolve to the Respondent's Websites that purport to offer competing publishing services under the AMAZON, AMZ or KDP marks while in some cases reproducing Complainant's colour scheme or using similar logos, indicating that Respondent is passing off as Complainant or associated with Complainant.

 

Respondent registered and uses each of the amazonbookserviceprovider.com>, <amazonkdppublication.org>, <amazonkdppublishing.org> and <amzpublishingservices.co> domain names in bad faith. Respondent uses each of the Domain Names to disrupt Complainant's business and to attract visitors for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant. Given the use of the Respondent's Websites to offer competing publishing services, the reputation of the AMAZON, AMZ and KDP marks and that the Respondent's Websites directly refer to the Complainant and its services, Respondent registered the Domain Names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AMAZON, AMZ and KDP marks.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the AMAZON, AMZ and KDP marks. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to at least one of Complainant's AMAZON, AMZ or KDP marks. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names in bad faith.

 

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 has rights in the AMAZON mark based on registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 2,078,496 registered July 15, 1997). Complainant also has rights in the AMZ mark and KDP mark based on registration with United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office ("UKIPO") (e.g., Reg. No. UK00003731802 registered March 18, 2022 and Reg. No. UK00004156441 registered April 25, 2025).  Registration of a mark with the USPTO or UKIPO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Russell & Bromley Limited v. KIM H. SUK, FA 1729773 (Forum June 12, 2017) (Registration with the UKIPO (or any other governmental authority) is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i), even if Respondent is located in another country.").

 

The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names are confusingly similar to at least one of the AMAZON, AMZ or KDP marks as they each incorporate at least one of the AMAZON, AMZ or KDP marks while adding generic terms ("publishing" or "book service provider" for example) and a gTLD or ccTLD. Addition of generic or descriptive terms and a gTLD or ccTLD to a mark is generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("Respondent merely adds the term 'supports' and a '.org' gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the AMAZON, AMZ or KDP marks. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists "Maxx Jaffer / SONYA HERBURGER / John Miller / Fahad Khan" as the registrants of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Names resolve or have resolved to the Respondent's Websites which purport to offer competing publishing services while reproducing the Complainant's marks, colour scheme and in one case a similar logo while suggesting an association between Respondent and the Complainant that does not exist. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to divert internet users to a website offering services in competition with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a 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) (finding that "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).").   

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names (between May 2024 and October 2025), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's AMAZON, AMZ and KDP marks since the Complainant had developed a significant reputation in the AMAZON and KDP marks in the publishing space, Respondent purports to offer competing publishing services and each of the Respondent's Websites makes reference to the Complainant. There is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register four domain names that each contain at least one mark owned by the Complainant and use each of them to redirect visitors to striking similar websites purportedly offering publishing services in direct competition with the Complainant other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the AMAZON, AMZ and KDP marks. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith as it seeks to create confusion with Complainant's AMAZON, AMZ and KDP marks for commercial gain by the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites that purport to offer competing publishing services while falsely asserting a connection with Complainant that does not exist.  Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <amazonbookserviceprovider.com>, <amazonkdppublication.org>, <amazonkdppublishing.org> and <amzpublishingservices.co> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated:  February 12, 2026