Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Chun Bin Bi
Claim Number: FA2206002002379
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Chun Bin Bi (“Respondent”), Hong Kong.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <amazonweb.vip>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with Go Montenegro Domains, 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 June 28, 2022; the Forum received payment on June 28, 2022.
On June 30, 2022, Go Montenegro Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <amazonweb.vip> Domain Name is registered with Go Montenegro Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Go Montenegro Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Go Montenegro Domains, 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 July 1, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 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@amazonweb.vip. Also on July 1, 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 July 28, 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 Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark AMAZON registered, inter alia, in the USA for on line retail services with first use recorded as 1995. The mark is well known.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding only the generic word ‘web’ and the gTLD ‘.vip’ which does not prevent said confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name resolves to a web site using the Complainant’s AMAZON mark in logo form with its smile logo underneath as a masthead to collect information from Internet users for fraudulent purposes. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. It is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith disrupting the Complainant’s business in a confusing and fraudulent manner.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark AMAZON registered, inter alia, in the USA for on line retail services with first use recorded as 1995. The mark is well known.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 has been used for a web site using the Complainant’s AMAZON mark in logo form with its smile logo underneath as a masthead which is designed to collect information from Internet users for fraudulent purposes.
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 Name consists of the Complainant’s AMAZON mark (which is registered in, inter alia, the USA for on line retail services since 1995), the generic term ‘web’ and the gTLD ‘.vip’.
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a sign confusingly similar to the 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). Adding the generic term ‘web’ does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark.
The gTLD ‘.vip’ does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. 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).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. 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 purpose of the Respondent’s web site is commercial and so cannot be non commercial legitimate fair use.
The web site attached to the Domain Name uses the Complainant’s AMAZON mark in its logo form with the Complainant’s smile logo underneath as a masthead so that the Respondent’s site appears to be an official site of the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is deceptive and passing off. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See iFinex Inc. v. Yuri Heifetz/Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent’s mimicking the complainant’s web site in order to cause existing or potential customers of the Complainant’s to believe they are dealing with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
The purpose of the site appears to be phishing which cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial fair use. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (finding that ‘Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non commercial or fair use’). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark).
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or provided any explanation.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it uses the Complainant’s marks as a masthead to purport to be an official web site of the Complainant.. The use of the Complainant’s logos shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its business. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Allianz of AM. Corp v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website).
Further phishing to collect personal information is evidence of bad faith registration and use within the Policy 4(a)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Mihael, FA 605221 (Forum Jan. 16, 2006) (“soon after the disputed domain name was registered, Respondent arranged for it to resolve to a web site closely resembling a legitimate site of Complainant, called a ‘doppelganger’ (for double or duplicate) page, the purpose of which is to deceive Complainant’s customers into providing to Respondent their login identification, social security numbers, and/or account information and Personal Identification Numbers…. The Panel finds that Respondent’s behavior, as alleged, constitutes bad faith registration and use of the subject domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(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 <amazonweb.vip> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: July 28, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page