Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Theresa Chavez / Jennifer Walker / Jimmy P. Wright
Claim Number: FA2203001988956
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Theresa Chavez / Jennifer Walker / Jimmy P. Wright (“Respondent”), Unknown.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <blinkcamera.live>, <blinkcomera.com>, and <outlet-blink.store>, 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.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 18, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 18, 2022.
On March 22, 2022, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blinkcamera.live>, <blinkcomera.com>, and <outlet-blink.store> 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 March 23, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 12, 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@blinkcamera.live, postmaster@blinkcomera.com, postmaster@outlet-blink.store. Also on March 23, 2022, 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 April 17, 2022, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are effectively controlled by the same person or entity, 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 shows that the disputed domain names resolve to the same websites, with the same registrar, similar patterns in the WHOIS information and similar registrant names in past UDRP proceedings. In the absence of any information to the contrary, the Panel finds that Respondents are one in the same and will be referred to collectively as Respondent.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <blinkcamera.live>, <blinkcomera.com>, and <outlet-blink.store> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLINK mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <blinkcamera.live>, <blinkcomera.com>, and <outlet-blink.store> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <blinkcamera.live>, <blinkcomera.com>, and <outlet-blink.store> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Amazon Technologies, Inc., holds registrations for the BLINK mark with various trademark agencies (e.g. Japanese Patent Office (“JPO”) Reg. 6,280,519, registered Aug. 14, 2020; German Patent and Trademark Office (“GPTMO”) Reg. 726,217, registered June 18, 2018).
Respondent registered the <blinkcamera.live>, <blinkcomera.com>, and <outlet-blink.store> domain names on September 17, 2021, March 10, 2022, and October 7, 2021, respectively, and uses them to compete with Complainant in the security business.
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 rights in the BLINK mark through its registrations with various trademark agencies. See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world.”)
Respondent’s <blinkcamera.live>, <blinkcomera.com>, and <outlet-blink.store> domain names (the “disputed domain names”) all use the BLINK mark, and add words that relate to Complainant’s business, along with a gTLD. These changes are insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Empowered Medical Solutions, Inc. d/b/a QRS-Direct and QRS Magnovit AG v. NULL NULL / QUANTRON RESONANCE SYSTEMS / JIM ANDERSON / HTR / unknown HTR / HTR, FA 1784937 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Adding or removing descriptive terms or a gTLD is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”) Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLINK mark.
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 argues that Respondent has no rights or interests in the <blinkcamera.live>, <blinkcomera.com>, and <outlet-blink.store> domain names, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the BLINK mark. The WHOIS of record identifies Respondent as “Theresa Chavez/Jennifer Walker/Jimmy P. Wright.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where “the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.”)
Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <blinkcamera.live>, <blinkcomera.com>, and <outlet-blink.store> domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to compete with Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Alcon, Inc. v. ARanked, FA 1306493 (Forum Mar. 18, 2010) (“The Panel finds that capitalizing on the well-known marks of Complainant by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing products of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”) Complainant demonstrates that the disputed domain names resolve to various online marketplaces that offer camera and security accessories. 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 (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent has exhibited a pattern of bad faith registration and use. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), where there are multiple domain names at stake, as well as a history of adverse UDRP proceedings against a Respondent, there is evidence of a pattern of bad faith registration and use. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. oranges arecool XD / orangesarecool.com, FA1405001558045 (Forum July 10, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s registration of multiple domain names in the instant proceeding and prior adverse UDRP history was evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Complainant shows that Respondent has registered dozens of disputed domain names under different aliases, in this case and in prior adverse UDRP cases. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has exhibited a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant also argues that Respondent uses the <blinkcamera.live>, <blinkcomera.com>, and <outlet-blink.store> domain names to disrupt Complainant’s business for commercial gain. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv), using a disputed domain name to host competing products or services evinces bad faith registration and use. See CAN Financial Corporation v. William Thomson / CNA Insurance, FA1401001541484 (Forum Feb. 28, 2014) (finding that the respondent had engaged in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), by using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its own website where it sold competing insurance services); see also LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum Jan. 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered the <blinkcamera.live>, <blinkcomera.com>, and <outlet-blink.store> domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark. The Panel agrees, noting Respondent’s websites, which purport to sell Complainant’s products, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”).
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 <blinkcamera.live>, <blinkcomera.com>, and <outlet-blink.store> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 18, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page