DECISION

 

Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Zhang Biao Cao / Cao Zhang Biao / Zhang Biao / Cao Zhangbiao / Wang Li Hong / Li Hui

Claim Number: FA1711001758917

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA.  Respondent is Zhang Biao Cao / Cao Zhang Biao / Zhang Biao / Cao Zhangbiao / Wang Li Hong / Li Hui (“Respondent”), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <amazonafc.com>, <amazonai.info>, <amazonfurniture.store>, <amazonplay.club>, <amazonplay.net>, <amazonwebservices.top>, <animestrike.net>, <awsai.net>, <awsamazon.info>, <awsamazon.xyz>, <awschain.com>, <awscloud.date>, <awscloud.news>, <awscloud.pub>, <awscloud.win>, <awsgamelift.net>, <awsgermany.com>, <awsiot.net>, <awsitaly.com>, <awssingapore.com>, <kindleoasis.store>, and <primeday.store>, (hereinafter, collectively, the “Disputed Domain Names”), registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn); West263 International Limited; Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.; or HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited.

 

PANEL

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 L. Kreider, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 16, 2017; the Forum received payment on November 16, 2017.

 

On Nov 16, 2017; Nov 20, 2017; Nov 21, 2017, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn); West263 International Limited; Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.; HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <amazonafc.com>, <amazonai.info>, <amazonfurniture.store>, <amazonplay.club>, <amazonplay.net>, <amazonwebservices.top>, <animestrike.net>, <awsai.net>, <awsamazon.info>, <awsamazon.xyz>, <awschain.com>, <awscloud.date>, <awscloud.news>, <awscloud.pub>, <awscloud.win>, <awsgamelift.net>, <awsgermany.com>, <awsiot.net>, <awsitaly.com>, <awssingapore.com>, <kindleoasis.store>, and <primeday.store> domain names are registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn); West263 International Limited; Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.; HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn); West263 International Limited; Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.; HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited have verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn); West263 International Limited; Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.; and HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited registration agreements, 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 27, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 18, 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@amazonafc.com, postmaster@amazonai.info, postmaster@amazonfurniture.store, postmaster@amazonplay.club, postmaster@amazonplay.net, postmaster@amazonwebservices.top, postmaster@animestrike.net, postmaster@awsai.net, postmaster@awsamazon.info, postmaster@awsamazon.xyz, postmaster@awschain.com, postmaster@awscloud.date, postmaster@awscloud.news, postmaster@awscloud.pub, postmaster@awscloud.win, postmaster@awsgamelift.net, postmaster@awsgermany.com, postmaster@awsiot.net, postmaster@awsitaly.com, postmaster@awssingapore.com, postmaster@kindleoasis.store, postmaster@primeday.store.  Also on November 27, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 14, 2017.

 

On December 18, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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.

 

LANGUAGE

Complainant requests that English be adopted as the language of these administrative proceedings, for the following reasons:

 

“The Panel has discretion to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings on appointment. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Ed.  Complainant respectfully requests that the proceedings be conducted in English because (a) the disputed domains incorporate English words including “chain,” “cloud,” “furniture,” “game,” “lift,” “play,” “services,” and “strike”; (b) the disputed domains target English language TLD’s including .club, .date, .news, .store, .top and .win; (c) Respondent’s business activities are conducted using the e-mail www@akbar.club which targets an English language TLD; and (d) the landing pages for the active domains use English words including “service,” “Whois” and “Copyright,” and English pay-per-click links;  [ ] Accordingly, it is clear that Respondent has the ability to understand and communicate in English, such that conducting these proceedings in English will not prejudice Respondent.  See Citigroup Inc. v. Jun, FA1708001742937 (Forum Aug. 28, 2017) (that “Respondent targeted English language marks (even though the resolving web pages are in Chinese) and did not respond to a notice of this proceeding which was in Chinese” constituted “sufficient persuasive evidence Respondent is conversant and sufficiently proficient in the English language”); and Chan Luu, LLC. v. Kim, FA1610001697833 (Forum Nov. 28, 2016) (finding that proceedings should be conducted in English where “Respondent’s disputed domain targets Complainant, a United States company and its mark, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.shop” is an English word, and Respondent has failed to file any responsive pleadings”).  On the other hand, conducting these proceedings in a language other than English will cause Complainant to incur significant additional burden and delay to translate the Complaint and other documents.  See SWX Swiss Exchange v. SWX Financial LTD, D2008-0400 (WIPO May 12, 2008) (in determining the language of the proceeding, “account should be taken of the risk that a strict and unbending application of paragraph 11 may result in delay, and considerable and unnecessary expenses of translating documents…”).  Accordingly, Complainant submits that English is the most appropriate language for these proceedings.”

 

Respondent requests that Chinese be adopted as the language of these proceedings.  Respondent argues:

 

“Since our idiomatic expressions are Chinese, and the level of English proficiency is very limited, the answer is partly from Machine Translation. It is unavoidable to express inaccuracy or inaccuracy. Please reply in Chinese.”

 

The Panel observes, however, that Respondent’s email correspondence with the Forum, consisting of some eight (8) separate emails, are all written in English, and that Respondent’s Response is written in both English and Chinese, thus, evidencing Respondent’s facility with, and apprehension of, the English language.  The Respondent has even elected to sign his name “Cao ZhangBiao” in English script, as well as in Chinese characters （曹张标）, following the certification clause at the bottom of the Response. 

 

In view of the above, the Panel finds that no material prejudice will result to Respondent should English be adopted as the language of these proceedings.  The Panel, moreover, speaks and reads Mandarin Chinese as a second language, and has reviewed and considered Respondent’s Chinese-language submissions along with Respondent’s English-language submissions.

 

The Panel decides that English shall be adopted as the language of these administrative proceedings.

 

DISPUTED DOMAIN REGISTRATIONS HELD BY A SINGLE RESPONDENT

 

Complainant submits that the disputed domains are owned by the same person or entity, and accordingly all the disputed domain names may be considered in a single complaint:

 

·         The registrant contact email for the following domains is the same – 170361@qq.com: amazonafc.com, amazonplay.net, animestrike.net, awsai.net, awsgamelift.net, awsgermany.com, awsiot.net, awsitaly.com, awssingapore.com, amazonai.info, awsamazon.info, amazonfurniture.store, awschain.com, kindleoasis.store, and primeday.store.

·         The registrant contact email for the following domains is the same – www@akbar.club: amazonplay.club, amazonwebservices.top, awscloud.news, awscloud.date, awscloud.win

·         WHOIS for the domains awscloud.date and awscloud.win uses Cao Zhangbiao / www@akbar.club for registrant and Zhang Biao / 170361@qq.com as admin.

·         Nominal registrant names for all domains, except awsamazon.xyz and awscloud.pub (discussed below), are variations of the same root name Cao Zhang Biao.

·         The registrant address and phone number for awsamazon.xyz, nominally owned by Wang Li Hong, is identical to the registrant address and phone number for kindleoasis.store and primeday.store which are owned by Cao Zhang Biao / 170361@qq.com.  In addition, awsamazon.xyz was registered within a day after awsamazon.info which is nominally owned by Zhang Biao / 170361@qq.com.

·         The admin for awscloud.pub, nominally owned by Li Hui, is Cao Zhangbiao / www@akbar.club.

·         All of the disputed domains except awscloud.date and amazonfurniture.store have pointed to the same parking page which references www@akbar.club.

·         Unlikely data, such as the phone number +86.12345678911 used for amazonai.info and awsamazon.info, suggest that Respondent is comfortable using fictitious WHOIS info.

·         The disputed domain names all incorporate Complainant’s trademarks. 

 

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.   Complainant

AMAZON, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, AWS, AMAZON GAMELIFT, ANIME STRIKE, PRIME DAY, KINDLE and KINDLE OASIS are registered trademarks around the world.  Amazon's registrations are prima facie evidence of validity and establish Complainant's rights for purposes of the Policy.  See, e.g., Janus Int'l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive, and Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption) and Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration … with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”).  “If the complainant owns a trademark, then it generally satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights”; “[t]he location of the trademark … and the goods and/or services for which it is registered, are all irrelevant for the purpose of finding rights in a trademark under the first element of the UDRP.”  WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Ed.  See also Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Forum Apr. 23, 2007) (“it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction”).

 

AWS

 

For more than a decade, Amazon Web Services - also known as AWS - has been the world’s most comprehensive and broadly adopted cloud platform.  AWS offers over 90 fully featured services for computer, storage, networking, database, analytics, application services, deployment, management, developer, mobile, Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), security, hybrid, and enterprise applications, from 44 Availability Zones (AZs) across 16 geographic regions.  AWS services are trusted by millions of active customers around the world – including companies like Adobe, Airbnb, Comcast, Dow Jones, Expedia, GE, Hulu, The Kellogg Company, Netflix and PBS - to power their infrastructure, make them more agile, and lower costs.  As regards the disputed domains, AWS business areas involve cloud, AI and IoT services as noted above as well as credential chains, and AWS facilities are located in Germany, Italy and Singapore.

 

Amazon GameLift

 

Launched on February 9, 2016, Amazon GameLift is an AWS service that provides simple, fast, and cost-effective dedicated game server hosting.

 

Anime Strike

 

Launched on January 12, 2017, Anime Strike is an Amazon streaming video subscription service that provides access to serious anime, from seinen classics to exclusives from Japan.  Respondent registered AnimeStrike.net on January 13, 2017 – just hours after Amazon launched Anime Strike with attendant international publicity. 

 

 

 

Kindle Oasis

 

Amazon produces the “Kindle,” an immensely popular electronic reading device which is used to view digital books sold through Amazon’s online retail stores.  The original Kindle, which featured an “e-ink” screen that is easy to read, even in direct sunlight, was released on November 19, 2007.  CNN described the Kindle as having “the curves of a Lamborghini;” Popular Mechanics gave it a “brightest innovation” award in 2008; Oprah Winfrey lauded it as her “new favorite thing;” and Martha Stewart declared that she was “totally hooked” on her KINDLE device.  Today, several versions of the Kindle are available, including the Kindle, Kindle Paperwhite, Kindle Voyage and Kindle Oasis.  Kindle e-readers are available in 175 countries, and millions of Kindle devices have been sold.  Kindle e-readers come with instant access to the Kindle Store, which includes millions of books, newspapers and magazines, including the latest best sellers.  As a result of extensive use, advertising, media coverage and commercial success, the KINDLE trademark has become famous.  See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Gulati, FA1604001671917 (Forum May 21, 2016) (finding that KINDLE is a famous mark).

 

Prime Day

 

On July 5, 2015, the eve of Amazon’s 20th birthday, the company announced Prime Day, a global shopping event, with more deals than Black Friday, exclusively for Prime members.  The first Prime Day was held July 15, 2015.  Amazon sold more units on Prime Day than Black Friday 2014, the biggest Black Friday ever.  Customers ordered 34.4 million items across Prime-eligible countries, breaking all Black Friday records with 398 items ordered per second.  More new members tried Prime worldwide than any single day in Amazon history.  Customers ordered hundreds of thousands of Amazon devices – making it the largest device sales day ever worldwide.  See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Arnaboldi, FA1603001665620 (Forum April 15, 2016) (acknowledging the “prominence” of Prime Day).  Prime Day has taken place annually since 2015. 

 

A.        CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR DOMAIN NAME (ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(1) and ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)):

 

The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered and well-known AMAZON, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, AWS, AMAZON GAMELIFT, ANIME STRIKE, KINDLE, KINDLE OASIS and PRIME DAY trademarks.

 

Each disputed domain incorporates at least one of Complainant’s trademarks in its entirety, adding only (a) generic terms (most of which are directly associated with Complainant’s business); (b) geographic indicators (all of which are directly associated with Complainant’s business); and/or (c) generic top level domains (e.g. .store which is also directly associated with Complainant’s business). 

 

These variations of Complainant’s famous marks do not avoid confusing similarity.  See Hewlett-Packard Dev. Co. L.P. v. Surya Tech., FA0708001059665 (Forum Oct. 2, 2007) (“addition of a term that relates to the business in which Complainant engages and the addition of the gTLD are not sufficient to differentiate a domain name from a known mark”); Caterpillar Inc. v. personal, D2010-2190 (WIPO Feb 8, 2011) (adding the name of a product the Complainant markets to Complainant’s mark is “likely to compound the likelihood of confusion”) (emphasis added); Gannett Co., Inc. v. Chan, D2004-0117 (WIPO Apr. 8, 2004) (“[I]t is well established that a domain name consisting of a well-known mark, combined with a geographically descriptive term or phrase, is confusingly similar to the mark”); Hewlett-Packard Dev. Co., L.P. v. Kaiser, FA0912001299317 (Forum Feb. 10, 2010) (“the combination of Complainant’s two marks creates confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the marks”); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Noble, FA1709001748000 (Forum Oct. 2, 2017) (finding that <amzonaws.com> is confusingly similar to AMAZON and AWS); Amazon.com Inc. v. Li, D2013-2160 (WIPO March 3, 2014) (finding <awscdn.com> confusingly similar to AWS where CDN was found to be an acronym associated with services offered under Complainant’s AWS trademark); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Caffey, FA1408001576228 (ForumSept. 22, 2014) (finding <kindlestore.com> confusingly similar to KINDLE); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Arnaboldi, FA1603001665620 (Forum April 15, 2016) (finding <primeday.org> confusingly similar to PRIME DAY); Abbott Labs v. Whois Svc. c/o Belize Domain WHOIS Svc., FA0903001254682 (Forum May 14, 2009) (“the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark”); and Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt, Inc. v. Magna, FA1404001552960 (Forum May 8, 2014) (finding that the TLD, “.clothing” in <victoriassecret.clothing> could be “disregarded for the purposes of comparison”).

 

Accordingly, Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, requiring that the domain name(s) at issue be "identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights" is satisfied.

 

 

B.        NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN DOMAIN NAME (ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(2) and ICANN Policy ¶4(a)(ii):

 

Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; Respondent is not making a noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain names; and Respondent has never been legitimately known as or referred to as AMAZON, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, AWS, AMAZON GAMELIFT, ANIME STRIKE, KINDLE, KINDLE OASIS, PRIME DAY or any variation thereof.  As a result, Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain names, as legitimate interests are defined in Paragraphs 4(c)(i)-(iii) of the UDRP.

 

WHOIS identifies Respondent as Zhang Biao Cao aka Cao Zhang Biao aka Cao Zhangbiao aka Zhang Biao aka Wang Li Hong aka Li Hui.  Respondent is not commonly known by AMAZON, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, AWS, AMAZON GAMELIFT, ANIME STRIKE, KINDLE, KINDLE OASIS, PRIME DAY, or any variations thereof.  Respondent is not licensed by Complainant to use Complainant’s AMAZON, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, AWS, AMAZON GAMELIFT, ANIME STRIKE, KINDLE, KINDLE OASIS or PRIME DAY marks.  Respondent is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant’s goods and services.  See Broadcom Corp. v. Ibecom PLC, FA0411000361190 (Forum Dec. 22, 2004) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where there was nothing in the record to indicate that Respondent was commonly known by the domain name); and Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA0301000139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (finding that the WHOIS information, and its failure to imply that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, is a factor in determining that Policy ¶4(c)(ii) does not apply).

 

The disputed domain names <awscloud.date> and <amazonfurniture.store> do not resolve to active websites despite having been registered for nearly a year and more than 5 months respectively.  “One does not engender rights or legitimate interests merely based on holding domain names without any active use or demonstrable preparations to use them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).” Nike, Inc. v. Fang Wei et al., FA0907001272458 (Forum Aug. 21, 2009) (citations omitted).  In fact, failure to develop the sites demonstrates a lack of genuine interest in the domain names. Flor-Jon Films, Inc. v. Larson, FA 94974 (Forum July 25, 2000).  See also Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Color Vivo Internet, FA0909001282898 (Forum Oct. 21, 2009) (noting that failure to make any active use of a domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA0703000933276 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that a respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name); and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA0503000434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (finding that a respondent’s inactive use of a domain name that contains complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). 

 

The remaining disputed domain names resolve or have resolved to a parking page that provides contact information for Respondent and an invitation to contact Respondent for “business negotiation.”  Separately, Respondent is offering to sell certain disputed domains at specific prices ranging from $500 to $5,000.  These efforts to sell the disputed domains do not reflect a bona fide or legitimate use.  See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v. Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one holds a domain name primarily for the purpose of marketing it to the owner of a corresponding trademark); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork, D2000-0628 (WIPO Aug. 11, 2000) (finding the respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use); Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s willingness to sell a contested domain name for more than its out-of-pocket costs provided additional evidence that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name); and Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. Shin, FA 154098 (Forum May 27, 2003) (holding that under the circumstances, the respondent’s apparent willingness to dispose of its rights in the disputed domain name suggested that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).

 

The disputed domains <awsamazon.xyz>, <awsgermany.com>, <awsitaly.com> and <awssingapore.com> recently began resolving to pay-per-click pages.  Seeking to attract pay-per-click traffic and ad revenue using Complainant’s well-known trademarks does not reflect a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii).  See Disney Enters. Inc. v. Kamble, FA 918556 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy); and Vance International, Inc. v. Abend, FA0704000970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself profiting commercially from the click-through fees).

 

For the above reasons, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

C.        REGISTRATION AND USE IN BAD FAITH (ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(3) and ICANN Policy 4(a)(iii)):

 

At the time Respondent registered the disputed domain names, Complainant’s targeted trademarks were famous and well-known to countless consumers.  Since the disputed domain names target a wide variety of Complainant’s trademarks, across Complainant’s diverse businesses, and in some cases, incorporate multiple Complainant trademarks in a single domain, it is clear that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with knowledge of Complainant’s rights and intended to create an association with Complainant and its products and services.

 

Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use with regard to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that “[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse”); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Souders, FA1503001610740 (Forum April 21, 2015) (finding it inconceivable that Respondent was not familiar with Complainant’s AMAZON mark and that “actual knowledge is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); Amazon.com, Inc. v. Korotkov, D2002-0516 (WIPO Aug. 13, 2002) (determining that the complainant’s AMAZON mark was so well-known that it was “inconceivable respondent was unaware of the trademark, its connotations and its commercial attractiveness”); Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA0007000095312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question was “obviously connected” with the complainant’s well-known marks); Skype v. Caruso, FA 1431445 (Forum May 4, 2012) (“Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name further evidences Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)”); and Twitter, Inc. v. accueil des solutions inc, D2013-0062 (WIPO April 1, 2013) (“where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known product or service, its very use by someone with no connection with the product may suggest opportunistic bad faith”) (emphasis added, citations omitted).

 

Respondent’s invitations to negotiate and offers to sell the disputed domains for $500 to $5,000 are further evidence of bad faith.  See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)”); Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net” Web Serv., FA 95685 (Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that “general offers to sell the domain name, even if no certain price is demanded, are evidence of bad faith”); Barclays Bank PLC v. Peterson, FA1501001598260 (Forum Feb 18, 2015) (“Complainant demonstrates that Respondent sought to sell the domain name in response to Complainant’s cease-and-desist demand, requesting a sum of $10,000.  This constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)”); and Yahoo! Inc. v. Cho, FA0302000146934 (Forum April 16, 2003) (“Respondent acted in bad faith when he offered to sell the domain name to Yahoo! for more than his documented out-of-pocket expenses”).

 

Furthermore, Respondent registered the disputed domain <animestrike.com> within hours of widespread industry and mainstream press regarding Complainant’s launch of the Anime Strike service.  This constitutes opportunistic bad faith.  See Sun v. Color Vivo, FA0909001282898 (Forum October 21, 2009) (finding that registration of <javastore.com> a little over a month after the complainant’s announcement of a similarly named service was evidence of “opportunistic bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)”); Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006)(“If there had been any doubt as to bad faith, the fact that registration was on the same day the news leaked about the merger, which was put in evidence, is a compelling indication of bad faith that respondent has to refute and which he has failed to do. The panel finds a negative inference from this.”); Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Albery Estates, LLC, FA1010001350673 (Forum Nov. 14, 2010) (finding bad faith where the disputed domain was registered following a leak, but before the product launch or issuance of any registrations); Microsoft Corp. v. Lee, FA1201001426106 (Forum March 6, 2012) (registration of <halo4beta.net> only days after Complainant had publicly announced that it would be releasing HALO 4 “strongly suggests that Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name has been done in bad faith within the contemplation of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)”); and Sota v. Waldron, D2001-0351 (WIPO June 18, 2001) (finding that a respondent’s registration of the <seveballesterostrophy.com> domain name at the time of the announcement of the Seve Ballesteros Trophy golf tournament “strongly indicates an opportunistic registration”).

 

Regarding the domains that resolve to pay-per-click sites, by using Complainant’s trademarks to attract and monetize traffic, Respondent has attempted to commercially benefit, unfairly and opportunistically, from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s trademarks, and this conduct of diversion shows bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).  See V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Bryant Little, FA 301728 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent’s practice of diversion, motivated by commercial gain, constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”).  See also Microsoft Corp. v. Chen, FA1208001459312 (Forum Sept. 24, 2012) (finding bad faith where the Respondent used “the confusingly similar at-issue domain name to front a pay-per-click parking page and thereby impermissibly benefit from the domain name’s inclusion of” Complainant’s mark); and The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Zhichao Yang, FA1605001672938 (Forum June 3, 2016) (“Respondent's use of domain names incorporating Complainant's mark to profit from confusion by displaying pay-per-click links is indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy”). 

 

Respondent’s inactive use of the disputed domains <amazonfurniture.store> and <awscloud.date> is further evidence of bad faith.  See Sun v. Color Vivo, FA0909001282898 (Forum Oct. 21, 2009) (“in order to find bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) it is not necessary that Respondent have put the domain name to any active use … failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name can, in and of itself, be evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)”); Chrisma Productions, Inc. v. Quinn Jr., FA0905001263592 (Forum July 13, 2009) (finding that Respondent’s inactive use of the <harveykorman.com> domain name constituted bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make an active use of the domain name satisfied the requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Forum Apr. 12, 2007) (holding that non-use of a confusingly similar domain name for over seven months constituted bad faith registration and use); Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that a respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that that respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith); and Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith). 

 

Furthermore, Respondent’s use of multiple aliases and other false WHOIS information is calculated to frustrate the purposes of WHOIS and obscure registrant’s true identity, and this is further evidence of bad faith.  See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Enterptise Online Services, Ltd., FA1205001444232 (Forum June 14, 2012) (“[providing false WHOIS information] alone is sufficient grounds to find bad faith registration and use of the domain name”); and Cactus Restaurants Ltd. v. Web Master, FA0604000671297 (Forum May 23, 2006) (inferring bad faith from, inter alia, inadequate or inoperative contact details).

 

Finally, the sheer number of domains registered by Respondent that target Complainant’s trademarks shows a pattern of bad faith domain name registration. See Microsoft Corp. v. Mishal, FA1101001370342 (Forum March 16, 2011) (registration of nine domain names incorporating Complainant’s mark is evidence of a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); and Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). 

 

Based on the foregoing, Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

 

We believe that there is no dispute over the domain name (sic) we own, that is, it does not meet any of the following conditions：

 

(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

A.        The disputed domain names are not identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

Please inform us what complaint party holds a trademark or service mark, so that I can meet the complaint "Rule 3 (b) (IX) (1); UDRP wearing (sic) 4 (a) (I). The conditions. Our reasons are as follows:

 

1. The domain name we registered is in compliance with the domain name registration rules, which is legally registered by the domain name registrar in China, and satisfies the relevant regulations of the domain name registration bureau and the service provider.

2. The registered domain name of our party does not conflict with or resemble the unknown trademark or business mark of the complainant. We believe that the combination of prefix and suffix is an integral part of the whole domain. Even if there is some overlap or inclusion of some letters with unknown trademarks or business marks, it will not cause any similarity or confusion.

3. We learned about the beautiful scenery of Amazon from the movie theater, and yearned for the beautiful scenes of Amazon River. Therefore, registering the related domain names of Amazon River has nothing to do with the complainants.

4. In our Chinese market, our micro business activities are very developed. In order to develop activities such as micro businesses and services, we register the domain name with the initial letter of love micro business (aiweishang) as a combination (AWS), and use the domain name as an absolute legal right to use.

 

B.        Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.

 

1. We have the right and legitimate interests of the domain name. We have obtained the right to use the domain name and the legitimate interests in accordance with the international practice of payment registration and the right to use in accordance with the provisions of the domain name registration.

2. We use the domain name legally and reasonably, and there is no intention to mislead the consumer with profit as the purpose.

3. We learned about the beautiful scenery of Amazon from the movie theater, and yearned for the beautiful scenes of Amazon River. Therefore, registering the related domain names of Amazon River has nothing to do with the complainants.

4. in our Chinese market, our micro business activities are very developed. In order to develop activities such as micro businesses and services, we register the domain name with the initial letter of love micro business (aiweishang) as a combination (AWS), and use the domain name as an absolute legal right to use.

 

[C.       The disputed domain names have not been registered and are not being used in bad faith.]

 

[This section is left blank in the Response.]

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that, as a result of Amazon’s extensive advertising and use of the AMAZON Mark, the AMAZON Mark is one of the most famous marks and business names in the world.[1]

 

Complainant’s AMAZON, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, AWS, AMAZON GAMELIFT, KINDLE and PRIME DAY trademarks were registered with the USPTO on April 13, 2004; May 20, 2008; February 17, 2009; November 22, 2016; October 6, 2009; and March 8, 2016, respectively.  Complainant’s ANIME STRIKE; and KINDLE OASIS trademarks were registered with the Patent Office of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on August 9, 2017, and with the European Union Intellectual Property Office on October 14, 2016, respectively.  (Each individually a “Mark”, and collectively, the “Marks”).

 

Complainant acknowledges that Respondent registered the disputed domain <animestrike.net> on January 13, 2017, a date some eight (8) months before Complainant registered its “ANIME STRIKE” Mark.  Complainant’s evidence shows, however, that Amazon’s Anime Strike streaming video service was publicly launched with considerable fanfare on January 12, 2017, one day before Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name.  It is clear to this Panelist that Respondent specifically targeted Complainant, when he registered this Disputed Domain Name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in anticipation that Complainant would file for trademark registration. [2]

 

In his Response, Respondent claims ownership of all of the disputed domain names.^[3]  The Panel finds as an admitted fact, that the disputed domains are owned or held by the same person or entity, i.e., Respondent, and accordingly, that all the disputed domain names may properly be considered in a single complaint. 

 

Respondent’s Response sets out four (4) numbered paragraphs (repeated verbatim at paragraph A. above), in response to the first element of the Policy, at UDRP ¶ 4(a)(i), and a further four (4) numbered paragraphs (repeated verbatim at paragraph B. above), in response to the second element, at UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii), but omits entirely any response to the third element, at UDRP ¶ 4(a)(iii).  Notwithstanding this structural deficiency, the Panel will weigh and consider the various arguments made by Respondent in relation to all three elements of the Policy, to the extent such arguments may be relevant.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

 

Each of the Disputed Domain Names incorporates in their entirety one or more of Complainant’s registered Marks.  The Panel finds that the combination of Complainant’s Marks with features or attributes of Complainant’s services (e.g., “AMAZON” + “AI” [“artificial intelligence”] or “AWS” + “CLOUD” [“cloud” computing refers to the storing and accessing of computer data and programs housed at remote locations over the Internet, instead of on a local computer's hard drive] as but two examples), increases, rather than diminishes the likelihood of confusion on the part of public Internet users.  The use of such generic top-level domains as “info”, “store”, “club”, and “top”, among others, is either of no relevance to the inquiry under this element of the Policy, or, as in the case of the Disputed Domain Names ending with “.store”, further increases the potential for confusion with Complainant’s business.

 

The Panel finds in relation to all of the Disputed Domain Names, that Complainant has satisfied Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent is not licensed by Complainant to use Complainant’s AMAZON, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, AWS, AMAZON GAMELIFT, ANIME STRIKE, KINDLE, KINDLE OASIS or PRIME DAY marks, nor is Respondent an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant’s goods and services.  Moreover, whereas the Disputed Domain Names <awscloud.date> and <amazonfurniture.store> do not resolve to active websites, the remaining Disputed Domain Names resolve, or have resolved, to a “parking page” that provides contact information for Respondent and an invitation to contact Respondent for “business negotiation.”  Separately, Respondent is offering to sell certain disputed domains at specific prices, ranging from $500 to $5,000.  Further, Complainant asserts, the Disputed Domain Names <awsamazon.xyz>, <awsgermany.com>, <awsitaly.com> and <awssingapore.com> recently began resolving to pay-per-click pages, where they will presumably attract pay-per-click traffic and ad revenue to Respondent’s benefit.

 

Complainant having made out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in or to the Disputed Domain Names, the burden of coming forward with rebuttal evidence shifts to Respondent.

 

The Panel finds Respondent’s representations that he registered the Disputed Domain Names incorporating Complainant’s “AMAZON” Mark because he “yearned for the beautiful scenes of [the] Amazon River” which he learned of by watching movies, and that he incorporated Complainant’s “AWS” [Amazon Web Service] Mark into the domain names as a short-hand version of “AI” (“love”), “WEI” (“micro”), and “SHANG” (“business”) (“爱微商”), to be wholly incredible and unworthy of belief.

 

Rather, it is apparent from Complainant’s submissions, including without limitation, evidence that Respondent registered the <animestrike.net> domain name on January 13, 2017, “just hours after [Complainant] launched its Anime Strike streaming video subscription service…”, that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s well-known Marks does not reflect a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i) or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel finds in relation to all of the Disputed Domain Names, that Complainant has satisfied Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

 

Complainant avers:

 

“At the time Respondent registered the disputed domain names, Complainant’s targeted trademarks were famous and well-known to countless consumers.  Since the disputed domain names target a wide variety of Complainant’s trademarks, across Complainant’s diverse businesses, and in some cases, incorporate multiple Complainant trademarks in a single domain, it is clear that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with knowledge of Complainant’s rights and intended to create an association with Complainant and its products and services.”

 

Indeed, on the record before it, this Panel finds it inconceivable that Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s registered Marks, their connotations and commercial attractiveness when he registered the Disputed Domain Names.  Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  Furthermore, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain <animestrike.com> within hours of widespread industry and mainstream press regarding Complainant’s launch of the Anime Strike streaming video subscription service, as well as Respondent’s ubiquitous use of multiple aliases and false WHOIS information to obscure his true identity when registering the Disputed Domain Names, is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith.  As Complainant correctly argues, the sheer number of domains registered by Respondent targeting Complainant’s Marks standing alone, reflects a pattern of bad faith domain name registration sufficient on its own to satisfy Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds in relation to all of the Disputed Domain Names, that Complainant has satisfied Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <amazonafc.com>, <amazonai.info>, <amazonfurniture.store>, <amazonplay.club>, <amazonplay.net>, <amazonwebservices.top>, <animestrike.net>, <awsai.net>, <awsamazon.info>, <awsamazon.xyz>, <awschain.com>, <awscloud.date>, <awscloud.news>, <awscloud.pub>, <awscloud.win>, <awsgamelift.net>, <awsgermany.com>, <awsiot.net>, <awsitaly.com>, <awssingapore.com>, <kindleoasis.store>, and <primeday.store> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated:  December 20, 2017