Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy
Claim Number: FA1707001741129
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Craig A. Beaker of Perkins Coie, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <amazonprimecustomerservice.com>, <amazonprimehelpdesk.com>, and <amazonprimeservices.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 21, 2017; the Forum received payment on July 21, 2017.
On July 24, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <amazonprimecustomerservice.com>, <amazonprimehelpdesk.com>, and <amazonprimeservices.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 24, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 14, 2017 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@amazonprimecustomerservice.com, postmaster@amazonprimehelpdesk.com, postmaster@amazonprimeservices.com. Also on July 24, 2017, 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 August 15, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that its AMAZON mark has continuously been used in commerce for providing online retail and related goods and services since at least as early as 1995, and that the marks AMAZON PRIME and PRIME have been used since at least as early as 2005 for similar offerings. Complainant registered the AMAZON PRIME mark in the United States in 2008. The marks are also registered elsewhere around the world and they are famous.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its AMAZON PRIME mark because they each incorporate the mark fully, minus the space, and add generic terms like “help desk,” “services,” and “customer service,” along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Per the WHOIS of record, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Furthermore, Respondent cannot make out rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the domain names merely conjure a false association with Complainant in an attempt to collect Internet users’ personal information. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. Use of a website to mimic Complainant’s website and phish for Internet users’ personal information constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Furthermore, while Respondent redirects Internet users to a website that is nearly identical to Complainant’s—in a fraudulent scheme to acquire personal and financial information of Internet users—it is clear that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights which demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark AMAZON PRIME, with rights dating back to 2008. The mark is famous.
The disputed domain names were registered in March and July 2017.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.
The disputed domain names point to websites that mimic Complainant’s website, purport to be official Complainant sites, and phish for Internet users’ personal information.
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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Complainant raises two preliminary issues: the language of the proceedings, and the fact that there are multiple respondents. Complainant argues that the proceedings can be conducted in English because the Respondents are familiar with that language. But the registration agreement is in English, so, pursuant to Rule 11(a), the present proceedings will be in English and the Panel need not consider this matter further. The Panel will now consider the matter of multiple respondents.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
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.”
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. To support this allegation, Complainant provides, inter alia, the following arguments:
1. The webpages associated with the disputed domains are used for the same fraudulent scheme whereby they contain Complainant’s marks as well as fraudulent calling information for Complainant’s customers to call regarding cancellation of their Amazon Prime membership.
2. The webpages associated with the Disputed Domains share certain content, including but not limited to: (a) the home webpages contain the same telephone image and the same person with the words AMAZON and PRIME and “Call Us-Toll Free” at the top of the webpage; and (b) the websites contain the same search queries, including “amazon prime customer service,” “amazon prime customer service number,” “amazon prime customer service phone number,” “amazon prime customer service phone,” “call amazon prime customer service phone,” “call amazon prime customer service,” “amazon prime membership customer service,” “customer service amazon prime,” “amazon prime customer service phone number usa,” “contact amazon prime customer service,” “amazon prime customer service email,” “amazon prime phone number customer service,” etc.
3. The domain <amazonprimeservices.com> redirects to <amazonprimehelpdesk.com>.
The Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that all the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. Therefore it accepts that the present Complaint relates to all three disputed domain names.
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMAZON PRIME mark because they each incorporate the mark fully, minus the space, and add generic terms like “help desk,” “services,” and “customer service,” along with the gTLD “.com.” These changes are not sufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMAZON PRIME mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, nor does it hold any license to use any of Complainant’s marks. Per the WHOIS of record, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Where a response is lacking, relevant information includes the WHOIS and any other assertions by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). The WHOIS identifies “Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy” as the registrant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Furthermore, Respondent cannot make out rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the domain names merely conjure a false association with Complainant in an attempt to collect Internet users’ personal information. Where a respondent incorporates a complainant’s marks in its resolving website, especially in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, no rights or legitimate interests can be found. See Vivendi Universal Games v. Ballard, FA 146621 (Forum Mar. 13, 2002) (stating that where the respondent copied the complainant’s website in order to steal account information from the complainant’s customers, that the respondent’s “exploitation of the goodwill and consumer trust surrounding the BLIZZARD NORTH mark to aid in its illegal activities is prima facie evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s famous mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to point to websites that mimic Complainant’s website, conjure a false association with Complainant, and phish for Internet users’ personal information. This constitutes bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Zoetis Inc. and Zoetis Services LLC v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA1506001623601 (Forum July 14, 2015) (“Respondent’s attempt to use the <zoietis.com> domain name to phish for personal information in fraudulent emails also constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers); Smiths Group plc v. Snooks, FA 1372112 (Forum Mar. 18, 2011) (“Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by using the Domain Name to pass itself off as Complainant for Respondent’s fraudulent commercial gain.”); Regents of the Univ. of Michigan v. VistaPrint Tech. Ltd., FA 1460764 (Forum Oct. 5, 2012) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s fraudulent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant constitute evidence of bad faith registration and use.”); Yahoo! Inc. v. Dank, FA 203169 (Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (finding respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for an information theft scam and illegal commercial gain constituted bad faith). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names constitutes behavior consistent with a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain as per Policy ¶ 4(b)(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 <amazonprimecustomerservice.com>, <amazonprimehelpdesk.com>, and <amazonprimeservices.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: August 16, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page