DECISION

 

Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Fedescu A

Claim Number: FA2606002228510

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Fedescu A ("Respondent"), Romania.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <amazonnotifications.com>, <amazonsellernotifications.com>, <cs-amazon.com>, and <reply-amazon.com> (individually and collectively, the "Disputed Domain Names"), registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 22, 2026; Forum received payment on June 22, 2026.

 

Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on June 25, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On June 23, 2026, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <amazonnotifications.com>, <amazonsellernotifications.com>, <cs-amazon.com>, and <reply-amazon.com> domain names are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 June 26, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 16, 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@amazonnotifications.com, postmaster@amazonsellernotifications.com, postmaster@cs-amazon.com, and postmaster@reply-amazon.com. Also on June 26, 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 July 17, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it is a leading retailer offering a wide variety of products and services. Complainant opened its virtual doors in July 1995, offering retail store services via the website <amazon.com>, which today is the fourth most-viewed website in the United States and the ninth most-viewed website globally. Complainant's worldwide expenditures on advertising and other promotional costs for 2025 were $23.5 billion. Due to extensive advertising, use, and commercial success, the AMAZON trademark has become famous and is consistently ranked as one of the most well-known and recognizable brands globally, as numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized.

 

That it owns registrations for the AMAZON and AMAZON.COM trademarks in the United States and other countries, together with a registration for its Amazon logo design, which Complainant uses to promote its business. Complainant uses the e-mail addresses <donotreply@amazon.com> and <cs-reply@amazon.com>, and the account name "Amazon Seller Central Notifications," among others, for account verification notices and customer support.

 

That the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's AMAZON and AMAZON.COM trademarks. Each incorporates the AMAZON trademark in its entirety, adding only descriptive or generic terms ("notifications," "seller," "reply"), in one case the letters "cs," which Complainant uses as an abbreviation for "Customer Service," in two cases a hyphen, and the ".com" gTLD, which is shared with AMAZON.COM. These elements do not sufficiently distinguish the Disputed Domain Names from Complainant's trademarks.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. The Registrar-supplied WHOIS identifies Respondent as Fedescu A. Respondent is not commonly known by AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, or any variation thereof, is not affiliated with Complainant, is not licensed by Complainant to use Complainant's marks, and is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant's goods and services. The Disputed Domain Names do not resolve to active websites. Respondent is using <cs-amazon.com> to impersonate Complainant in bogus account verification e-mails purporting to originate with Complainant; e-mails sent from that domain name identify the sender as the "Seller Performance Team" at "Amazon.com," display Complainant's Amazon logo, and include a link to a bogus "Start Verification" URL. There are no disclaimers or other efforts to distinguish Respondent from Complainant or to disclose that there is no relationship between them. Because Respondent registered the remaining Disputed Domain Names on the same day as <cs-amazon.com>, and because they carry the same connotation of official communications from Complainant, Respondent undoubtedly uses or plans to use them for the same illegitimate purposes.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent plainly registered the Disputed Domain Names with knowledge of Complainant's rights and intended to create an association with Complainant and its services. Respondent is using <cs-amazon.com>, Complainant's Amazon logo, Complainant's <amazon.com> URL, and express misrepresentations to impersonate and pass itself off as Complainant and to transmit bogus account verification e-mails, conduct that demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent is attempting through this scheme to benefit commercially, unfairly and opportunistically, from the goodwill associated with Complainant's trademarks. The remaining Disputed Domain Names are passively held for the same purposes, and there is no conceivable good faith use for domain names that incorporate Complainant's famous AMAZON trademark and mimic Complainant's official communication channels.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Complainant, Amazon Technologies, Inc., together with its licensees and predecessors in interest, including Amazon.com, Inc., is a leading online retailer and technology company. Complainant opened its virtual doors in July 1995, offering retail store services via the website <amazon.com>, and today offers a wide variety of products and services to consumers worldwide. Complainant owns registrations for the AMAZON and AMAZON.COM trademarks (individually and collectively, the "AMAZON Marks") in the United States and other countries, including U.S. Registration No. 2,078,496 for AMAZON, registered on July 15, 1997, and U.S. Registration No. 5,281,455 for AMAZON, registered on September 5, 2017. Complainant also owns U.S. Registration No. 6,666,404, registered on March 8, 2022, for its Amazon logo design (the "Amazon Logo"). Complainant's registrations long predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Names. Due to extensive advertising, use, and commercial success, the AMAZON Marks have become famous and are among the most recognizable brands in the world.

 

Complainant uses the e-mail addresses <donotreply@amazon.com> and <cs-reply@amazon.com>, and the account name "Amazon Seller Central Notifications," among others, to send account verification notices and customer support communications to its customers and third-party sellers.

 

WHOIS information for the Disputed Domain Names was masked for privacy at the time the Complaint was filed. Pursuant to the Registrar's verification, Respondent, Fedescu A of Bucharest, Romania, is the registrant of all four Disputed Domain Names, with identical registrant, administrative, technical, and billing contact information and a common expiration date of March 18, 2027, for all four names. The record shows that the Disputed Domain Names were all registered on the same day. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are subject to common ownership and control and that this proceeding is properly brought against the single Respondent.

 

None of the Disputed Domain Names resolves to an active website, and the record discloses no demonstrable preparations by Respondent to use any of them in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

Correspondence in the record shows that Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name <cs-amazon.com> to send fraudulent e-mails to third-party sellers on Complainant's marketplace from the address <seller-performance@cs-amazon.com>, under the sender name "Seller Performance" and the subject line "Your Selling Account: Action Needed." The e-mails purport to originate from Complainant, display the Amazon Logo, assert that the recipient's "Amazon.com seller account" requires an additional security review, warn that the recipient's listings may be canceled, funds held, and selling privileges removed for failure to comply, and direct the recipient to a sham "Start Verification" link. The e-mails mimic the form and content of Complainant's genuine account verification notices sent from Complainant's own addresses, including <donotreply@amazon.com>. The Panel finds that this conduct constitutes "phishing": the use of a domain name to send deceptive e-mail communications purporting to originate from the trademark owner in order to extract money, credentials, or other sensitive information from recipients, here, Complainant's third-party sellers.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names or by the AMAZON Marks, is not affiliated with Complainant, and has not been licensed or otherwise authorized by Complainant to use the AMAZON Marks.

 

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 Overview 3.1 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 established its rights in the AMAZON Marks for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its trademark registrations in the United States and in other jurisdictions, including U.S. Registration No. 2,078,496 for AMAZON, registered on July 15, 1997. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) ("Registration … with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark."); see also WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.2.1.

 

Each of the Disputed Domain Names incorporates the AMAZON mark in its entirety, adding only the descriptive or generic terms "notifications," "seller," and "reply," the letters "cs," an abbreviation Complainant uses for "Customer Service," and, in two cases, a hyphen. The AMAZON mark remains clearly recognizable within each of the Disputed Domain Names, and the added matter does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); Am. Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 257901 (Forum June 7, 2004) (the "mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate" a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Indeed, because the added terms evoke the official notification and customer service correspondence that Complainant itself sends to its customers and sellers, their addition compounds, rather than dispels, the likelihood of confusion. See Twitter, Inc. v. qwewqqwwqe et. al., FA 1992610 (Forum May 27, 2022) (finding <notification-twitter.com> and <noreply-twitter.com> confusingly similar to TWITTER); Amazon Techs., Inc. v. Radumilo, FA 2016177 (Forum Nov. 22, 2022) (finding <amazonseller.us> confusingly similar to AMAZON). The presence of a hyphen is immaterial to the analysis.

 

The ".com" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded for purposes of the confusing similarity analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that each of the Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar to the AMAZON Marks and that the first element at Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.1.

 

The Registrar's verification identifies the registrant of the Disputed Domain Names as "Fedescu A," a name bearing no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Names or to the AMAZON Marks. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the AMAZON Marks, Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, and there is no evidence in the record that Respondent has been commonly known by any of the Disputed Domain Names for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA 361190 (Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where there was nothing in the record to indicate that the respondent was commonly known by the domain name); Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (finding that the WHOIS information, and its failure to imply that the respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, is a factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply).

 

Nor is Respondent making any use of the Disputed Domain Names that could confer rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has used <cs-amazon.com> to send fraudulent account verification e-mails impersonating Complainant and targeting Complainant's third-party sellers. Using a confusingly similar domain name to impersonate a complainant and defraud its customers or business partners through phishing e-mails is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Acquiom Holdings LLC v. Chung / Acquion, FA 2028874 (Forum Feb. 22, 2023) ("Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send email communications impersonating Complainant. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); Charles Komar & Sons, Inc. v. Bates, FA 1405374 (Forum Oct. 12, 2011) (phishing schemes "cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use").

 

The remaining Disputed Domain Names do not resolve to active websites, and holding a domain name without any active use or demonstrable preparations to use it does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Nike, Inc. v. Fang Wei et al., FA 1272458 (Forum Aug. 21, 2009). Because Respondent registered the remaining Disputed Domain Names on the same day as <cs-amazon.com>, and because each carries the same connotation of official communications from Complainant, the Panel infers that they are held for the same illegitimate purposes. See Amazon Techs., Inc. v. Folkerts et al., FA 1967621 (Forum Nov. 3, 2021) ("the Panel considers it likely that the Inactive Domain Names are being held pending use in a similar manner to the Active Domain Names.").

 

Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names, and Respondent, having defaulted, has come forward with no evidence to rebut that showing. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names and that the second element at Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is satisfied.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The AMAZON Marks are famous. This Panel found nearly a decade ago that "the AMAZON Mark is one of the most famous marks and business names in the world." Amazon Techs., Inc. v. Zhang Biao Cao, FA 1758917 (Forum Dec. 20, 2017). Respondent's fraudulent e-mails reference Complainant's <amazon.com> domain name and display the Amazon Logo, and each of the four Disputed Domain Names pairs the AMAZON mark with terms evocative of Complainant's official communication channels, mimicking Complainant's genuine e-mail addresses <donotreply@amazon.com> and <cs-reply@amazon.com> and its "Amazon Seller Central Notifications" account name. The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and of its rights in the AMAZON Marks when it registered the Disputed Domain Names, and that Respondent selected them precisely to create an association with Complainant. Such registration with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Amazon Techs., Inc. v. Souders, FA 1610740 (Forum Apr. 21, 2015) ("actual knowledge is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

Respondent's use of <cs-amazon.com> to transmit fraudulent account verification e-mails impersonating Complainant is paradigmatic bad faith. Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name to send deceptive e-mails in furtherance of a phishing scheme, passing the sender off as the complainant in order to defraud the complainant's customers or business partners, constitutes bad faith registration and use. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.4; MFTB Holdco, Inc. dba Zillow v. Destiny Alms, FA 2062105 (Forum Oct. 23, 2023) ("…it is well established that the registration of a confusingly similar domain name with the intent to disrupt business by passing off as a complainant using fraudulent emails is evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); Zappos IP LLC v. VAN, FA 2072995 (Forum Dec. 22, 2023) (respondent's passing itself off as the complainant in furtherance of fraud through e-mail sent from the disputed domain name disrupts the complainant's business and shows bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv)). By impersonating Complainant's "Seller Performance" team and deploying the Amazon Logo to lend its fraudulent e-mails an air of authenticity, Respondent has intentionally attempted to profit, unfairly and opportunistically, from the goodwill associated with the AMAZON Marks, further evidencing bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Respondent's passive holding of the remaining Disputed Domain Names does not prevent a finding of bad faith as to them. Respondent registered all four Disputed Domain Names on the same day, each mimics Complainant's official communication channels, and there is no conceivable good faith use to which domain names of this character could be put. Under these circumstances, including the fame of the AMAZON Marks, Respondent's demonstrated phishing scheme through <cs-amazon.com>, Respondent's concealment of its identity behind a privacy service, and Respondent's default, the Panel finds that the remaining Disputed Domain Names are being held pending use in a similar manner and that their passive holding itself evidences bad faith registration and use. See Amazon Techs., Inc. v. Folkerts et al., FA 1967621 (Forum Nov. 3, 2021) ("the Inactive Domain names likely being passively held pending similar use"); IDEX Corporation v. Hamman, FA 2217210 (Forum May 19, 2026) (failure to use a domain name that had hosted fraudulent e-mail to address substantive content is further evidence of bad faith); Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Color Vivo Internet c/o David Carrero Fdez-Baillo, FA 1282898 (Forum Oct. 21, 2009) ("Failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name can, in and of itself, be evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith and that the third element at Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) is satisfied.

 

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 <amazonnotifications.com>, <amazonsellernotifications.com>, <cs-amazon.com>, and <reply-amazon.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: July 18, 2026