Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Surjeet Singh
Claim Number: FA1607001685229
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Surjeet Singh ("Respondent"), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <kindlesupportonline.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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 July 25, 2016; the Forum received payment on July 25, 2016.
On July 26, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <kindlesupportonline.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 26, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 15, 2016 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@kindlesupportonline.com. Also on July 26, 2016, 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 August 22, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Also on August 22, 2016, the Forum received email correspondence from Respondent stating as follows: "this domain purchased by my client (<kindlesupportonline.com>) under our address, Now we are going to remove this domain and website.. we already deleted this domain name and website you can check online... if you need any other help lets know.. Thanks for update Surjeet."
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 a formal response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is one of the world's largest online retailers. Complainant has produced electronic reading devices since 2007; the devices are available in 175 countries, and millions have been sold. Complainant uses the KINDLE mark in connection with its e-reader devices and associated content and support services. Complainant asserts that the KINDLE mark has become famous as a result of extensive use, advertising, media coverage, and commercial success. KINDLE is a registered trademark in the United States and other jurisdictions.
The disputed domain name <kindlesupportonline.com> was registered in February 2016. The domain name resolves to a web page that promotes fee-based technical support services. The page displays Complainant's product images and includes repeated instances of the KINDLE mark, standing alone and within phrases such as "Official Kindle Support." Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by nor licensed to use Complainant's KINDLE mark; is not affiliated with Complainant in any way; and is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainants' goods and services. On these grounds Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's KINDLE mark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is 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 Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. 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.").
The disputed domain name <kindlesupportonline.com> corresponds to Complainant's registered KINDLE mark, appending the generic terms "support" and "online" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Deep aaron / Tech Base Help, FA 1674975 (Forum June 27, 2016) (finding <kindleonlinehelp.com> and <kindle-support.biz> confusingly similar to KINDLE); Google Inc. v. Sunil K, iSupport Solution / Aditi Sawant, iSupport Solution / Rohit Sharma / Vineet Sharma / Deep / Sunil K, FA 1599162 (Forum Feb. 19, 2015) (finding <gmailsupportonline.com> confusingly similar to GMAIL). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 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 Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark without authorization, and is being used in a misleading manner to promote services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy (see, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Deep aaron / Tech Base Help, supra (finding no rights or legitimate interests in similar circumstances)), and Respondent has failed to come forward with any other basis for rights or legitimate 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 name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, 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 is using a domain name that incorporates Complainant's well-known trademark to promote a competing business, under circumstances strongly supporting an inference that Respondent's conduct is targeted directly at Complainant or its mark. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Deep aaron / Tech Base Help, supra (finding bad faith registration and use under similar circumstances). The Panel therefore finds the disputed domain name was registered and is 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 <kindlesupportonline.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: August 26, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page