Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Aditya K
Claim Number: FA1912001875481
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David J. Diamond of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, United States. Respondent is Aditya K (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <echodotalexa.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 16, 2019; the Forum received payment on December 16, 2019.
On December 17, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <echodotalexa.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 December 20, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 9, 2020 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@echodotalexa.com. Also on December 20, 2019, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 13, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <echodotalexa.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALEXA, ECHO, and ECHO DOT marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <echodotalexa.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <echodotalexa.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to file a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Amazon Technologies, Inc., is one of the world’s leading online retailers, and the provider of the Amazon Echo smart devices. Complainant holds registrations for the ALEXA mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,181,470, registered on Aug. 11, 1998), and for the ECHO mark (Reg. No. 5,470,187, registered on May 15, 2018). Complainant also holds a registration for the ECHO DOT mark in India (Reg. No. 3,345,580, registered on Aug. 25, 2016).
Respondent registered the <echodotalexa.com> domain name to pass off as Complainant and offer competing technical support for Complainant’s Alexa technology, and to distribute malware.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the ALEXA, ECHO, and ECHO DOT marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based on registration with the USPTO and in India. See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world.”); see also Rackspace US, Inc. v. Russell Harrower, FA 1592005 (Forum Jan. 5, 2014) (“As stated above, Complainant has shown rights in the mark RACKSPACE by virtue of its registrations in the US, Europe, Mexico, Turkey, as well as in Australia, Respondent’s country of origin. All of the trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent and are sufficient evidence for Complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s <echodotalexa.com> domain name includes the ALEXA, ECHO, and ECHO DOT marks in their entirety, along with the “.com” gTLD. The combination of a complainant’s marks with the addition of a gTLD does not distinguish a disputed domain name from the marks for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC, and Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. James VanBuren, FA 1624028 (Forum July 10, 2015) (“The disputed domain name combines two of Complainant's registered trademarks, WYNDHAM and EXTRA VACATIONS, omitting the space and adding the ".com" top-level domain name. These alterations do not diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's marks.”); see also Textron Innovations Inc. v. Sheng Liang / Sarawina, FA 1622906 (Forum July 20, 2015) (finding confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) where Respondent’s <greenleetextron.com> domain name merely combined Complainant’s TEXTRON and GREENLEE marks and added the “.com” generic top-level domain suffix). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <echodotalexa.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMAZON, ECHO, and ECHO DOT marks.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show 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 contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <echodotalexa.com> domain name. Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Respondent is not a licensee or authorized to use Complainant’s ALEXA, ECHO, and ECHO DOT marks. The Panel notes that a privacy service was used by Respondent, but was lifted as a result of this proceeding. As a result, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Aditya K.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (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).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <echodotalexa.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use, stating that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and to offer competing technical support for Complainant’s Alexa technology. A respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant and offer competing services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use” where “Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services.”); see also Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) (“Respondent replicates Complainant’s website and displays Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s disputed domain name, which resolves to a webpage using Complainant’s mark and offering ALEXA technical support services. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Complainant also provides screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage, which features deceptive download animations and error messages, in an attempt to distribute malware. The Panel finds that this is also not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c) (i) or (iii). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1785199 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“Respondent uses the <coechella.com> domain name to direct internet users to a website which is used to attempt to install malware on visiting devices. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”); see also Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Padonack, FA 1043687 (Forum Sept. 6, 2007) (holding that the use of a disputed domain name to host a website that attempted to download a virus when accessed did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant further argues that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to distribute malicious software is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See eNom, Incorporated v. Muhammad Enoms General delivery / Enoms.com has been registered just few days after Enom.com, therefore could not have been regstere, FA1505001621663 (Forum July 2, 2015) (“In addition, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to install malware on Internet users’ devices. The Panel finds that this is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Microsoft Corporation v. ABK / George Owens a/k/a Rohan / Rohan Suha, FA1211001473573 (Forum Jan. 21, 2013) (holding that because the respondent used the disputed domain name to attempt to facilitate the download of malicious software to the computers of the website’s visitors, the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ALEXA, ECHO and ECHO DOT, which is demonstrated by its use of Complainant’s marks on the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage and its passing off as Complainant to offer competing technical support services. The Panel agrees and finds that this is further evidence that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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.”); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”); see also Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum January 5, 2018) (“[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <echodotalexa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: January 15, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page