Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Domain Admin / New Ventures Services, Corp / THIS DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE AT HTTPS://WWW.NETWORKSOLUTIONS.COM
Claim Number: FA1811001818276
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Fabricio Vayra of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington DC, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / New Ventures Services, Corp / THIS DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE AT HTTPS://WWW.NETWORKSOLUTIONS.COM ("Respondent"), Pennsylvania, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <amazoncrown.com>, <amazonmailbox.com>, <amaamzon.com>, <amazonsnile.com>, <amazondiapersonline.com>, <amazonmailboxes.com>, <amzonjobs.com>, <amazontablecloth.com>, and <amazontablecloths.com>, registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
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 E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 28, 2018; the Forum received payment on November 28, 2018.
On November 28, 2018, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <amazoncrown.com>, <amazonmailbox.com>, <amaamzon.com>, <amazonsnile.com>, <amazondiapersonline.com>, <amazonmailboxes.com>, <amzonjobs.com>, <amazontablecloth.com>, and <amazontablecloths.com> domain names are registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 November 29, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 19, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@amazoncrown.com, postmaster@amazonmailbox.com, postmaster@amaamzon.com, postmaster@amazonsnile.com, postmaster@amazondiapersonline.com, postmaster@amazonmailboxes.com, postmaster@amzonjobs.com, postmaster@amazontablecloth.com, and postmaster@amazontablecloths.com. Also on November 29, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 December 22, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 and its predecessors in interest have used the AMAZON mark since 1995 in connection with online retail and related goods and services. Complainant asserts that the mark has become famous, noting prior Panel decisions under the Policy that have so found, and states that it "is routinely ranked as one of the most valuable brands in the world." Complainant claims worldwide rights in the AMAZON mark, and cites numerous U.S. trademark registrations for the mark dating back to 1997.
Respondent registered or acquired the disputed domain names <amazoncrown.com>, <amazonmailbox.com>, <amaamzon.com>, <amazonsnile.com>, <amazondiapersonline.com>, <amazonmailboxes.com>, <amzonjobs.com>, <amazontablecloth.com>, and <amazontablecloths.com> on various dates between 2016 and 2018. The domain names resolve to websites consisting of pay-per-click links to products and services that are either related to Complainant or that advertise competing retail services. The Whois domain registrations records for the disputed domain names include offers to sell the domain names or links to sites containing such offers.
Complainant states that Respondent has no license or authorization to use Complainant's AMAZON mark, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names or any variant of Complainant's mark. Complainant accuses Respondent of engaging in a pattern of registering trademark-related domain names for pay-per-click websites, citing four other domain names previously owned by Respondent that contain Complainant's AMAZON mark or variations thereof along with several other domain names owned by Respondent that incorporate other famous marks including DISNEY, GOOGLE, and others. Complainant also cites 18 previous decisions rendered under the Policy in which Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain names <amazoncrown.com>, <amazonmailbox.com>, <amaamzon.com>, <amazonsnile.com>, <amazondiapersonline.com>, <amazonmailboxes.com>, <amzonjobs.com>, <amazontablecloth.com>, and <amazontablecloths.com> are confusingly similar to its AMAZON mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
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 Management, 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.").
Each of
the disputed domain names <amazoncrown.com>, <amazonmailbox.com>,
<amazondiapersonline.com>, <amazonmailboxes.com>,
<amzonjobs.com>, <amazontablecloth.com>, and
<amazontablecloths.com> incorporates Complainant's registered AMAZON
mark or a typographical variation thereof, adding one or two generic or
descriptive terms ("crown," "mailbox," "diapers
online," "mailboxes," "jobs," "tablecloth,"
or "tablecloths") and the ".com" top-level domain. The
disputed domain name <amazonsnile.com> combines AMAZON mark with a
misspelling of "smile" and the ".com" top-level domain. And
the disputed domain name <amaamzon.com> corresponds to a
misspelling of the AMAZON mark with the ".com" top-level domain
appended thereto. These additions and alterations do not substantially diminish
the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's AMAZON mark. See,
e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Thejeswar Reddy, FA 1721564 (Forum Apr. 18, 2017) (finding
<amazoncloths.com> confusingly similar to AMAZON); AOL Inc. v. Domain
Administrator & Registrant Registrant c/o Registrant, FA 1329749 (Forum July 26, 2010) (finding
<aolmailbox.com> confusingly similar to AOL); Amazon.com, Inc. v. The
Krablin Group, FA 593326 (Forum
Dec. 29, 2005) (finding <amazonjobs.com> confusingly similar to AMAZON); Amazon.com,
Inc. v. The data in Bulkregister.com's WHOIS database is p aka Domain Host aka
Andrey Michailov aka Momm Amed Ia, FA 293737 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (finding <aamazon.com>,
<amaazon.com> and <amazzon.com> confusingly similar to AMAZON). The
Panel considers each of the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to
Complainant's registered mark.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark or a typographical variation thereof without authorization, and they are being used for pay-per-click link pages that include links to competitors of Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the policy. See, e.g., Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. New Ventures Services / New Ventures Services, Corp, FA 1804844 (Forum Oct. 12, 2018) (finding lack of rights or interests under similar circumstances); TTT Moneycorp Ltd. v. Services, Corp, New Ventures, D2017-1483 (WIPO Sept. 7, 2017) (same); Karsten Manufacturing Corp. v. New Ventures Services, FA 1729687 (Forum June 5, 2017) (same); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. New Ventures Services, Corp, FA 1647714 (Forum Dec. 17, 2015) (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent's offers to sell the domain names are indicative of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i). See, e.g., Karsten Manufacturing Corp., supra (finding bad faith by same respondent based upon similar offer to sell domain name). Respondent's use of the domain names to display pay-per-click links to competitors of Complainant is also indicative of bad faith. See, e.g., Wiluna Holdings, LLC, supra (finding bad faith by same respondent under similar circumstances); TTT Moneycorp Ltd., supra (same); Karsten Manufacturing Corp., supra (same); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., supra (same). Respondent's history of adverse decisions under the Policy, together with Respondent's registrations of other domain names incorporating well-known trademarks, provides further support for an inference that Respondent intended to create and profit from confusion with Complainant's mark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <amazoncrown.com>, <amazonmailbox.com>, <amaamzon.com>, <amazonsnile.com>, <amazondiapersonline.com>, <amazonmailboxes.com>, <amzonjobs.com>, <amazontablecloth.com>, and <amazontablecloths.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: December 24, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page