DECISION

 

Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Daniel Foster / Alexa Business / Jason Franks

Claim Number: FA2604002213698

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Daniel Foster / Alexa Business / Jason Franks ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <alexabusiness.com> and <alexabusinessdirectory.com>, registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 2, 2026; Forum received payment on April 2, 2026.

 

On April 2, 2026, Squarespace Domains II LLC AND GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <alexabusiness.com> and <alexabusinessdirectory.com> domain names are registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Squarespace Domains II LLC and GoDaddy.com, LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II LLC and GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 April 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 27, 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@alexabusiness.com and postmaster@alexabusinessdirectory.com. Also on April 6, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 27, 2026. Subsequently, Respondent's undated Additional Submission and Amended Additional Submission were received by Forum.

 

On April 28, 2026, Forum received Complainant's Additional Submission and its Amended Additional Submission.

 

On April 28, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceeding, Complainant has alleged that, despite the listing of different Registrants in the respective WHOIS records, the disputed domain names at issue are effectively owned or controlled by the same domain name holder which is operating under different aliases. It then requests that these domain names be consolidated into the present proceeding. 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." Despite being presented with WHOIS records that name different Registrants, prior Panels have held that consolidation of a case against multiple domain names is appropriate where there are other similarities that indicate a likelihood of common ownership. See, e.g., American Airlines, Inc. v. Ramadhir Singh, WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Reema Gupta, Ballu Balwant, Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Lucy Lionel, Lucy99, Red Keep, D2021-0294 (WIPO Mar. 11, 2021) (consolidation upheld based on "the similar content and layout of the websites that were linked to the disputed domain names; the fact that all the disputed domain names target a specific sector and the same trademark within this sector; the similar patterns in the disputed domain names; and the identical reaction of the Respondents to the Complaint, not replying to the Complainant's contentions."); Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Shuai Li / Nan Zhang, FA 1932371 (Forum Mar. 18, 2021) (similar website content, use of same registrars and privacy services).

 

Complainant contends that, despite their respective WHOIS records listing different Registrant names and addresses, the two disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity because the domain names resolve to websites that display content that is identical or very similar in many respects and the WHOIS street address for <alexabusinessdirectory.com> on Sunset Blvd in Los Angeles, California, also appears in archived screen captures for the <alexabusiness.com> site.

 

In rebuttal, Respondent states that it "does not own, operate, or control alexabusiness.com, and has no affiliation with its operator." It cites to the WHOIS data which reflects different Registrants, contact details, and owner entities.

 

The Panel has reviewed the submitted WHOIS records and has found that the Registrants, contact details, and owner entities are, in fact, different. It has also reviewed the screenshots of the websites that resolve from these domain names and notes that, while the sites are not entirely identical, there are substantial material similarities between them including a large amount of identical text and graphics, identical background colors, and identical web browser favicons. Respondent has not addressed these in any of its pleadings and its very brief assertion of non-ownership of the <alexabusiness.com> domain name is limited to the noted WHOIS information. As WHOIS information can very easily be falsified, the Panel gives these differences only limited weight. Finally, the appearance of the identical Los Angeles address on an archived version of the <alexabusiness.com> website tips the balance of probability over into a conclusion that it is more likely than not that both domain names are, in fact, under common control by the same domain name holder. As such, the present case will proceed against both of them and their holder will be referred to in the singular as "Respondent".

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is one of the world's leading retailers, offering a wide variety of goods and services. In 2014, it launched the Amazon Echo smart speaker which featured Alexa, Amazon's cloud-based voice service. Alexa provides information on a wide variety of subjects including information about local businesses. Today, Complainant offers a wide variety of smart displays and smart speakers, and Alexa is available on hundreds of millions of devices from Complainant and third-party device manufacturers. The ALEXA name is the subject of a number of United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Registrations (e.g., Reg. No. 5880382 dated October 8, 2019; 5563417 dated September 18, 2018; and Reg. No. 7316440 dated February 27, 2024). In promoting its Alexa services, Complainant often uses a blue and white Talk Bubble Logo which is, itself, the subject of various trademark registrations (e.g., USPTO Reg. No. 5682947 dated February 26, 2019; and Reg. No. 5413055 dated February 27, 2018). 

 

The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the ALEXA mark as each incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds only descriptive or generic terms (e.g., "business", "directory") and the ".com" TLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names where it is not commonly known by the domain names and its use, for a business listing and marketing service that competes with Complainant, displays a variation of the Alexa Talk Bubble logo, and promotes third-party services that compete with ALEXA, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

The disputed domain names have been registered and are used in bad faith where Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its ALEXA mark and based on the above-mentioned website and business activity.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent filed an undated Response and an Additional Submission, both of which have been submitted after filing of the Complaint but prior to Complainant's Additional Submission.¹

 

Respondent does not own, control, or operate the domain <alexabusiness.com> and has no affiliation with its operator. The WHOIS data reflects different Registrants, contact details, and entities.

 

Respondent operates a legitimate, independent SaaS-based marketing and business listings platform designed to help businesses improve discoverability across multiple digital ecosystems, including search engines, directories, and voice-enabled platforms. This includes multi-platform integrations including Google, Apple, and Facebook which enable businesses to improve visibility in multiple search and voice-enabled environments. Respondent provides services to real clients and operates a live, revenue-generating system, not a parked or pretextual website.

 

Use of the terms "business" and "directory" in the <alexabusinessdirectory.com> domain name creates a distinct commercial impression referring to a business listings and marketing platform. Any reference to Alexa is a nominative fair use which reflects compatibility within broader voice search environments, not direct affiliation, endorsement, or integration with Complainant. The domain, as a whole, communicates a descriptive service function rather than source identity. Respondent's platform does not offer Alexa services. It integrates with Google, Apple, Facebook, and Directory ecosystems. Alexa is one of several supported environments—not the sole focus.

 

There is no intent to impersonate or target Complainant or its ALEXA mark and Respondent's website and Google search results display a disclaimer of affiliation, both on the website and in Google search results, which reads "AlexaBusiness is an independent marketing and directory platform. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Amazon Technologies, Inc. 'Alexa' is a registered trademark of Amazon Technologies, Inc., used here solely to indicate compatibility with voice assistant platforms."

 

C. Complainant's Additional Statement

Respondent has not addressed Complainant's evidence of common ownership of the two disputed domain names including the fact that the characteristics shared by the resolving websites are simply too unique, distinctive, and numerous to be coincidentally shared between these sites. Further, the WHOIS street address for <alexabusinessdirectory.com> on Sunset Blvd #55E in Los Angeles, California also appears in archived screen captures for the <alexabusiness.com> domain name. The same street address also appears in the current landing page footer for the <alexabusinessdirectory.com> domain name, however, the suite is listed as #55G instead of #55E.

 

Its use of the ALEXA mark is not fair or merely nominative as it offers competing services and promotes those of third parties. Further, Respondent does much more than describe compatibility. It uses variations of ALEXA and an imitation of the blue and white Alexa Logo – which is plainly derived from the Alexa Talk Bubble logo – as its sole brand and identity.

 

The appearance of disclaimers on Respondent's sites and in Google search results does not absolve it of bad faith as its activities intentionally create confusion. Further, Respondent's screenshot of its Google search results is unsigned and undated.

 

FINDINGS

-       Despite Respondent's claim that it does not own the <alexabusiness.com> domain name, the preponderance of evidence leads to the conclusion that both of the disputed domain names are, in fact, owned or controlled by the same person or entity;

-       Both of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark;

-       Respondent is not commonly known by the ALEXA mark and the overall circumstances of its use of the disputed domain names indicates that it is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under the domain names; and

-       It registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith where it had prior knowledge of the ALEXA mark and its websites compete with Complainant by causing a likelihood of confusion with the mark.

 

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in its ALEXA mark through its registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).") Here, Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registrations and therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ALEXA mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that each of Respondent's disputed domain names is identical or confusingly similar to its mark as their second level incorporates the mark in its entirety adding only generic or descriptive terms and a TLD. The mere addition of such words and a TLD is typically not sufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark. See Vance Int'l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that by adding the term "security" to the complainant's VANCE mark, which described the complainant's business, the respondent "very significantly increased" the likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark). Respondent asserts that its use of the descriptive terms "business" and "directory" serve to "create a distinct commercial impression referring to a business listings and marketing platform." The Panel disagrees and finds that each of the disputed domain names incorporates the entire ALEXA mark and only adds the noted generic words plus the ".com" TLD which do not detract from the more prominent appearance of the mark. As such, it finds that each domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 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 names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum  Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum  Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.").

 

Complainant first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by any of these domain names nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use Complainant's ALEXA mark or register domain names using the mark. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that 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 bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS records for the disputed domain names, as revealed by the concerned Registrars after the Complaint was filed, identify Respondent as "Jason Franks", or "Daniel Foster / Alexa Business". Further, Complainant specifically states that "Respondent is not licensed by Complainant to use Complainant's trademarks. Respondent is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant's goods and services" and Respondent affirms that it "does not claim: affiliation, endorsement, or sponsorship" and that it is independent of Complainant. While the Panel notes that the name "Alexa Business" appears in the WHIOS record for the <alexabusinessdirectory.com> domain name and the name "Alexa" appears extensively on Respondent's websites, this does not, itself, indicate that Respondent is commonly known thereby where such use appears intended to create consumer confusion. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., FA 390322 (Forum June 17, 2011) ("While the WHOIS information states that the domain name registrant is 'Microsoft Corporation,' the Panel is not required to find that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name absent further supporting evidence"); Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.") Respondent has not provided any supporting evidence regarding how it is known or perceived by the public and the Panel's own review of the two websites reveals that the Facebook, Instagram, X, and YouTube links on each only resolve to the home pages of each social media platform and do not lead to any profiles related to Respondent, the ALEXA service, or to business directory services. Therefore, based on its review of all of the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by either of the disputed domain names or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Next, addressing Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), the Complaint asserts that Respondent does not use its domain names in the bona fide offering of goods or services as the resolving websites seek to pass themselves off as originating with Complainant and they promote competing third-party services. Respondent asserts that it is making a "nominative and referential use" of the disputed domain names to "describe compatibility with voice-enabled platforms" and to "inform users of supported ecosystems" and it cites a seminal case on nominative fair use, Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001). The Oki Data test, as it has come to be known, may be summarized as follows:

 

a sales or service dealer of trademarked goods or services (whether authorized or unauthorized) may demonstrate that its domain name use is bona fide where:

 

1. it is actually offering the goods or services at issue;

2. it uses its website to sell only the trademarked goods or services and not those of a complainant's competitors or other third-parties;

3. the website accurately discloses the registrant's relationship (or lack thereof) with the trademark owner; and

4. the Respondent has not tried to corner the market in all domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in a domain name."

 

Textron Innovations Inc. v. Robert Vondersaar, FA 106243 (Forum Aug. 20, 2024).

 

Respondent states that it "operates a multi-platform marketing and listings system" which "[e]nables businesses to improve visibility in search and voice-enabled environments". However, Complainant argues that "both Respondent and Complainant provide information about local businesses – i.e., directory services" and it provides a screenshot of a page at <amazon.com> titled "Alexa Information" which includes a section titled "Discover local businesses and places" offering "information about local businesses". More importantly, it notes that Respondent's "landing pages also display Complainant's Alexa Talk Bubble Logo together with the logos of competing voice assistants such as Apple, Google, and Samsung (Bixby)" and "offers plans called 'Alexa Business' for $299.99 and 'Alexa Business Pro' for $499.99 that purport to '[get] your business on all of the major voice platforms: Siri, Google Assistant, Cortana, Bixby, and Amazon Alexa.'" It further points out that the favicon appearing on browser tabs for the disputed domain name websites is a nearly identical copy of its ALEXA blue and white talk bubble logo that has been rotated so that it's upside down. Finally, it points out that "'AlexaBusiness' is used as Respondent's sole brand and identity with no other indications of source."

 

It is against this backdrop that the Panel considers Respondent's defense. Prior decisions involving domain name owners who have claimed nominative fair use of an asserted trademark are instructive. The Panel in YETI Coolers, LLC v. Ryley Lyon / Ditec Solutions LLC, FA 1675141 (Forum July 11, 2016), noted that Respondent's Thermik branded mug handles "are not designed exclusively for use on YETI cups, but rather can also be used on other brands of cups (such as Rtic, Sic Cup and more). That, though, does not implicate the policy underlying this factor, which is to avoid 'bait and switch' scams. Here, the nature of the handles is that they can be used for other brands of cups and tumblers as well. In that context, Respondent has a legitimate interest in using the term 'YETI' in the Disputed [<yetihandles.net>, <yetihandle.net>, <yeticuphandles.com> and <yeticuphandle.com>] Domain Names in order to communicate that the handles can be used as an accessory for YETI (and other brands) cups." Next, the Respondent in Textron Innovations Inc. v. Robert Vondersaar, FA 106243 (Forum Aug. 20, 2024), used the domain name <lycomingoverhaul.com> and provided engine servicing for Complainant's aircraft as well as aircraft from other manufacturers under its company name A&E Aircraft Engines. The Panel in that case found that "[t]here is no evidence presented that supports the concern that users will go to Respondent's website to get information on overhauling services for Lycoming engines, see the information presented by Respondent about providing overhaul services for other engines, and decide instead to purchase overhauling services for other engines rather than for Complainant's engines." Finally, the Panel in Textron Aviation Inc. v. Omar Morais, FA 208967 (Forum April 17, 2026), found that "Respondent appears to be engaged in a good-faith aftermarket service business [named Beechtec Air Services] for genuine Beechcraft airplanes (which service includes adding third-party products to Complainant's airplanes). This gives rise to a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name in the sense of the Policy, which, it must be stressed, is intended to sanction only obvious cases of cybersquatting."

 

In the present case, Respondent provides a paid service that is essentially focused on marketing whereas Complainant's ALEXA service includes, as one of its elements, providing information about businesses. These are related though not identical pursuits. As such, it cannot be said, under the Oki Data test, that Respondent is actually offering Complainant's goods or services but, rather, that it provides services that are complementary to Complainant's (i.e., optimizing the visibility of a business in search and voice-enabled environments).

 

However, Respondent's activities diverge from those of the respondents in the above-cited nominative fair use decisions in a number of important ways. First, Respondent uses Complainant's ALEXA mark as its own business name rather than another term. It refers to itself as "Alexa Business" as indicated in the "@ Copyright 2026 - ALEXA BUSINESS" notice and the first line of the small-print disclaimer that appears in the footer of its websites (i.e., "Alexa Business is an independent marketing and directory platform."). When viewed against the other elements of Respondent's websites, this exacerbates consumer confusion. Second, Respondent notes that its service integrates with Google, Apple, Facebook, and Directory ecosystems and states that "Alexa is one of several supported environments—not the sole focus." This differs from some of the facts of the above-cited decisions resulting in that, to paraphrase the Panel in the <lycomingoverhaul.com> decision, there is a concern that users will go to Respondent's website to get information on improving the visibility of their business on Complainant's ALEXA service, see the information presented by Respondent about providing visibility enhancement services for other voice activated services, and decide instead to focus on these competing voice activated services rather than on Complainant's service. As such, Complainant's concern that its ALEXA mark is being used to promote competing, third-party businesses is not unfounded. Third, and finally, despite the appearance of a disclaimer of affiliation, the content of Respondent's websites goes beyond what would be needed to simply communicate to users the nature of Respondent's services in a truly fair, nominative manner. For example, extensive use is made of the ALEXA mark such as the message "Claim Your Alexa Business Listing", "Alexa Business Directory - Get Online Today", and "What Is Alexa"; at the top of the pages appears an upside down image of Complainant's Alexa Talk Bubble and this same graphic appears as the tab favicon in web browsers; the background of the site consists of a pale, blue color in the exact shade used by Complainant; towards the bottom of both sites are displayed the logos for various other voice activated services owned by Apple, Google, and Microsoft; and both sites display the phrase "As seen on:" followed by the logos of NBC News, FOX News, and CBS News and both also display various social media icons that only lead to the home pages of noted sites rather than to any page or profile related to Respondent or its business. Further consideration is given to the disclaimer of affiliation that appears at the bottom of Respondent's pages and, as claimed in the Response, on Google search results for Respondent's business. However, it is well accepted that disclaimers, alone do not negate a full analysis of a site and cannot cure confusion where it is otherwise apparent. As stated in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1") at par. 3.7, "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. In such cases, panels may consider the respondent's use of a disclaimer as an admission by the respondent that users may be confused."

 

Rather than apply a formalistic reading of the Oki Data test, this Panel has decided to apply a holistic view of the case, as suggested in Dashing Joys Limited and Imiracle (Shenzhen) Technology Co., Ltd v. Mohammad Zafar, UDRP-107605 (CAC July 16, 2025) which considered, inter alia, whether "[t]he Respondent's website can be easily distinguished from that of the trademark owner." Here, the Panel's review of Respondent's websites leads to the clear conclusion that they have been crafted so as to give the impression that they either originate with or are affiliated with Complainant. The combination of the disputed domain names, the name of Respondent's company, and the visual and textual elements of the websites overwhelm any message that may be conveyed by the small print disclaimers appearing at the bottom of the websites or in the Google search results.

 

In light of the above analysis, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that this has not been rebutted by Respondent.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ALEXA mark at the time of registering the <alexabusiness.com> and <alexabusinessdirectory.com> domain names. A respondent's actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in an asserted mark prior to registering a disputed domain name can form a foundation upon which to base an argument for bad faith. See 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."). Also see AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field."). Complainant asserts that "[a]s a result of extensive use, advertising, and commercial success, the ALEXA trademark has become well-known and famous." In support, it submits copies of its <amazon.com> website, on which ALEXA devices and services are promoted and sold, as well as copies of news reports featuring the ALEXA service from CNBC news, AdAge, Today news, and others. It also submits ALEXA app download pages from the Apple App and Google Play stores. Further, Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark (including its logo) is clear, as its websites are crafted to convey the impression that they originate with Complainant, as noted in the previous section. Based on the submitted evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain names and that it did so in bad faith.

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by confusing and deceiving users into thinking that they are dealing with a website that originates with Complainant and is a genuine source for ALEXA related services. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). In Instagram, LLC v. Saurabh Motwani, Hexashield Ltd., D2026-0459 (WIPO Apr. 7, 2026), the Respondent used the domain name <stealthgram.com> and "purported to offer a tool to view and download Instagram content, including stories, posts, highlights and reels, by entering an Instagram URL into the box on the website. It stated, among other things, that 'stealthGram focuses on enhancing the overall experience for its users by providing features that are not available directly on the official Instagram app.'" The Panel in found that "[t]he evidence shows that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks. While there was a disclaimer of association with the Complainant at the bottom of the Respondent's website, in the overall circumstances of this case that disclaimer could not have the effect of alleviating the confusion caused by the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name." As noted in the previous section, Respondent's websites seem designed to confuse users regarding the source or affiliation of the sites and they offer business listing services for either annual or one-time fees. Thus, the Panel finds the disputed domain names have been registered and are used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

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 <alexabusiness.com> and <alexabusinessdirectory.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: May 1, 2026