Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Ast Ltd / astltd / Suresh Williams / AST
Claim Number: FA2111001973191
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Ast Ltd / astltd / Suresh Williams / AST ("Respondent"), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <ring-camera.support> and <ring-camera.online>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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 November 14, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 14, 2021.
On November 14, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <ring-camera.support> and <ring-camera.online> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc.; that Ast Ltd / astltd is the current registrant of <ring-camera.support>; and that Suresh Williams / AST is the current registrant of <ring-camera.online>. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 November 17, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 7, 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@ring-camera.support, postmaster@ring-camera.online. Also on November 17, 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 December 13, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively the same person or entity operating under multiple aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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."
There are several factors that are normally considered when a complainant is filed against multiple respondents:
[P]anels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario.
Panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants’ identity(ies) including pseudonyms, (ii) the registrants’ contact information including email address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities, (iii) relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s), (iv) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (v) the nature of the marks at issue (e.g., where a registrant targets a specific sector), (vi) any naming patterns in the disputed domain names (e.g., <mark-country> or <mark-goods>), (vii) the relevant language/scripts of the disputed domain names particularly where they are the same as the mark(s) at issue, (viii) any changes by the respondent relating to any of the above items following communications regarding the disputed domain name(s), (ix) any evidence of respondent affiliation with respect to the ability to control the disputed domain name(s), (x) any (prior) pattern of similar respondent behavior, or (xi) other arguments made by the complainant and/or disclosures by the respondent(s).
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.11 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/.
Complainant asserts that the identities under which the disputed domain names are registered are aliases for a single entity, noting similarities in the registrant data, website content, and other aspects. The Panel also notes that the two domain names are identical but for the top-level domains; that notice of this proceeding has been transmitted to the contact points listed on both domain name registrations; and that no objection has been received to Complainant's request that the registrants of the disputed domain names be treated as a single entity for purposes of this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are under common control, and that it is therefore appropriate under Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules to include them in a single proceeding under the Policy.
A. Complainant
Complainant is one of the world's largest online retailers. Complainant and its predecessors in interest have offered home security products and services under the RING marks since 2014. Complainant owns United States trademark registrations for RING in both standard character and stylized form.
Respondent registered the disputed domain names <ring-camera.support> and <ring-camera.online> in April and May 2021. The domain names are being used for websites entitled "Ring Camera Support" and "Ring Camera and Ring Products Updates," both of which promote technical support services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Each website includes multiple instances of Complainant's RING mark and stylized logo, along with images of Complainant's products. Neither website includes any source identifiers other than Complainant's marks, nor any disclaimer or other disclosure that Respondent has no relationship with Complainant. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, is not affiliated with Complainant, and has not been licensed to use Complainant's marks.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain names <ring-camera.support> and <ring-camera.online> are confusingly similar to its RING mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are 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, supra, § 4.3; 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").
Each of the disputed domain names <ring-camera.support> and <ring-camera.online> incorporates Complainant's registered RING trademark, adding a hyphen and the generic term "camera" (which refers to a primary component of a product for which Complainant uses the mark) and appending the ".support" or ".online" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Tarun Apr, FA 1969027 (Forum Nov. 8, 2021) (finding <ring-camera.services> confusingly similar to RING); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suresh Williams / AST, FA 1964183 (Forum Oct. 14, 2021) (finding <ring-camera.com> confusingly similar to RING). The Panel considers each of the disputed domain names 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 names, 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 names incorporate Complainant's registered RING mark without authorization and are being used for misleading websites that attempt to pass off as Complainant for the purposes of promoting 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. Tarun Apr, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. David Hall, FA 1966274 (Forum Oct. 22, 2021) (same); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suresh Williams / AST, supra (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names, 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 names.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a 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."
The disputed domain names were registered via a privacy registration service; they incorporate Complainant's registered mark without authorization; and they are being used for misleading websites that attempt to pass off as Complainant for the purposes of promoting services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Tarun Apr, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. David Hall, supra (same); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suresh Williams / AST, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ring-camera.support> and <ring-camera.online> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: December 14, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page