Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Clayton S. Sailor / Theda Folkerts / G H
Claim Number: FA2112001978005
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Clayton S. Sailor / Theda Folkerts / G H (“Respondent”), Alabama, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <blinkcameras-usa.shop>, <blink-outlet.cc>, <blink-securitycamera.shop>, and <blink-usa.online>, (‘the Domain Names’) registered with Dynadot, 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.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 22, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 22, 2021.
On December 23, 2021, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blinkcameras-usa.shop>, <blink-outlet.cc>, <blink-securitycamera.shop>, and <blink-usa.online> Domain Names are registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 29, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 18, 2022 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@blinkcameras-usa.shop, postmaster@blink-outlet.cc, postmaster@blink-securitycamera.shop, postmaster@blink-usa.online. Also on December 29, 2021, 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 23, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain name(s) at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several 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.”
Complainant submits and has presented evidence that the Domain Names are owned by the same individual or entity for at least the following reasons:
• G H is the nominal registrant for both <blinkcameras-usa.shop> and <blink- securitycamera.shop> and these domain names were registered on the same day.
• The domain names <blinkcameras-usa.shop>, <blink-securitycamera.shop>, and <blink- usa.online> resolve to substantially similar Blink- and Amazon-branded online stores using the Complainant’s logos with substantially identical Blink- and Amazon-branded login pages.
• Theda Folkerts, the nominal registrant for <blink-usa.online>, and Clayton S. Sailor, the nominal registrant for <blink-outlet.cc>, were previously found to be aliases for the same individual or entity in Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Theda Folkerts / azu seedorf / Douglas Hall / Kimberly Ford / Timothy McGraw / John Fitzpatrick / Linsa Starling / Clayton S. Sailor, FA2110001967621 (Forum Nov. 3, 2021).
• The Domain Names all resolve to purported online camera stores.
• The Domain Names are all registered with the same registrar (Dynadot) and use the same nominal host (Cloudflare).
• All the Domain Names were registered within 3 months of each other.
Accordingly the Panel finds that this Complaint may relate to all of the Domain Names because they are registered by the same domain name holder.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant owns the trade mark BLINK registered, inter alia, in Singapore for home security goods and services since 2018.
The Domain Names registered in 2021 are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark containing it in its entirety adding only the generic terms “camera(s),” “outlet,” or “security,” and/or the geographic term “usa,” a hyphen, and a TLD (.online, or .shop) or ccTLD (.cc).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, is not commonly known by them and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The web sites connected with the Domain Names are using the Complainant’s trade mark as a masthead to purport to offer competing security goods and services. In the case of <blinkcameras-usa.shop>, <blink-securitycamera.shop>, and <blink-usa.online> in addition the Complainant’s logo and its Amazon mark and logo are used in the masthead of the sites attached to them and they also gather personal information of customers in apparent phishing attempts. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith impersonating the Complainant, disrupting its business and diverting Internet users for commercial gain. Phishing is bad faith per se. The Respondent has been the subject of several UDRP case for registering dozens of domain names containing the Complainant’s BLINK mark in the name of aliases showing a pattern of competing activity. Using aliases as incorrect WhoIS details is bad faith per se.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant owns the trade mark BLINK registered, inter alia, in Singapore for home security goods and services since 2018.
The Domain Names registered in 2021 have been used for sites offering competing home security goods and services using the Complainant’s mark in the masthead. In the case of <blinkcameras-usa.shop>, <blink-securitycamera.shop>, and <blink-usa.online> in addition the Complainant’s logo and its Amazon mark and logo are used in the masthead of the sites attached to them and they also gather personal information of customers in apparent phishing attempts. The Respondent has been the subject of several UDRP cases for registering dozens of domain names containing the Complainant’s BLINK mark in the names of various aliases.
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 Domain Names consist of the Complainant’s BLINK mark (registered, inter alia, in Singapore for home security goods and services since 2018) the generic terms “camera(s),” “outlet,” or “security,” and/or the geographic term “usa,” a hyphen, and a TLD (.online, or .shop) or ccTLD (.cc).
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds generic terms to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v. Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). Nor does the addition of a hyphen. See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (The addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i).). Accordingly the Panel agrees that the addition of the generic terms “camera(s),” “outlet,” or “security,” and/or the geographic term “usa,” and a hyphen to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Names and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.
The gTLDs “.shop” and .online and the ccTLD “.cc” do not serve to distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant’s mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Names. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its marks. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence that the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Names. 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). The use of the Domain Names is commercial and so cannot be legitimate noncommercial fair use.
The web sites attached to the Domain Names uses the Complainant's BLINK mark as a masthead to purport to offer competing home security goods and services. In the case of <blinkcameras-usa.shop>, <blink-securitycamera.shop>, and <blink-usa.online> in addition the Complainant’s logo and its Amazon mark and logo are used in the masthead of the sites attached to them. As such, the web sites appears official and/or authorized. The Panel finds this use was deceptive and confusing. As such it could not amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc. v. Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.). The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to use the Complainant’s trademarks in this way.
In the case of <blinkcameras-usa.shop>, <blink-securitycamera.shop>, and <blink-usa.online> where the Complainant’s BLINK and Amazon logos are used in the mastheads of the sites appearing to be official they also gather personal information of customers in apparent phishing attempts. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (finding that ‘Passing off in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use’).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Respondent has been the subject of several adverse UDRP decisions for registering many domain names containing the Complainant’s BLINK mark under numerous aliases showing a pattern of competing activity and illustrative of bad faith. See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA2001001878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020).
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Names in relation to the Respondent’s sites for competing home security products and services is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the sites might reasonably believe they were connected to or approved by the Complainant as they purported to offer competing home security products and services under the Complainant’s mark(s) and/or logos as a masthead appearing to be official sites of the Complainant. The use of the Complainant’s logos and the prior involvement of the Respondent is previous UDRP cases involving the Complainant’s BLINK mark shows actual knowledge of the Complainant, its rights, business and services.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web sites and products and services offered on them likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v. Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”).
In the case of <blinkcameras-usa.shop>, <blink-securitycamera.shop>, and <blink-usa.online> where the Complainant’s BLINK and Amazon logos are used in the mastheads of the sites appearing to be official they also gather personal information of customers in apparent phishing attempts. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), using a disputed domain name to phish for user information is generally demonstrative of bad faith. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4(b)(ii), (iii) and (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the<blinkcameras-usa.shop>, <blink-outlet.cc>, <blink-securitycamera.shop>, and <blink-usa.online> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page