Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. da tang / no
Claim Number: FA2108001961001
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is da tang / no ("Respondent"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <kindlecomic.net>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 24, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 24, 2021.
On August 26, 2021, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to the Forum that the <kindlecomic.net> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 August 26, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 15, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@kindlecomic.net. Also on August 26, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 September 17, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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
Complainant, one of the world's largest online retailers, has offered electronic reading devices and related services under the KINDLE mark since 2007. Complainant owns trademark registrations for KINDLE in the United States and other countries, and asserts that the mark has become famous as a result of extensive use, advertising, media coverage, and commercial success.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <kindlecomic.net> in August 2015. The domain name is being used for a website entitled "kindle漫画 | 再也不用到处找漫画了," which apparently translates to "kindle comics | No longer have to look for comics everywhere." The website offers e-book downloads and paid memberships for faster downloads (directing users to a page captioned just "kindle" for payment). Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant's mark and is neither affiliated with Complainant nor licensed to use its mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <kindlecomic.net> is confusingly similar to its KINDLE mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <kindlecomic.net> incorporates Complainant's registered KINDLE trademark, adding the generic term "comic" and the ".net" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Richard McCarthy / WorkingWebsites / Ricardo McCartney, FA 1838865 (Forum May 18, 2019) (finding <kindlebookreview.net> confusingly similar to KINDLE); 腾讯控股有限公司 (Tencent Holdings Ltd.) v. Lin Ren Yu, HK-1801069 (ADNDRC Mar. 27, 2018) (finding <tencentcomic.com> and <tencentcomics.net> confusingly similar to TENCENT). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for a website that uses a variation of Complainant's mark to promote e-book services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / See PrivacyGuardian.org, FA 1881866 (Forum Mar. 4, 2020) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's KINDLE mark and is using it for a website that displays the mark and promotes competing services. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / See PrivacyGuardian.org, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel notes that the KINDLE mark likely became famous well before Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / See PrivacyGuardian.org, FA 1929622 (Forum Feb. 23, 2021) (noting that the "KINDLE mark had become famous several years before [2018]"); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Gulati, FA 1671917 (Forum May 21, 2016) (noting fame of KINDLE mark). The Panel infers that the registration was specifically targeted at Complainant and its mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <kindlecomic.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: September 20, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page