Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Monitor Trace
Claim Number: FA1907001854269
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Monitor Trace (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <amazon-apparels.com>, and <amazon-clothings.com>, and <amazon-decor.com>, and <amazon-decors.com>, and <amazon-electrical.com>, and <amazon-electricals.com>, and <amazon-furnishing.com>, and <amazon-furnishings.com>, and <amazon-furnitures.com>, and <amazon-todaysoffer.com>, and <amazonapparels.com>, and <amazonclothings.com>, and <amazonfurnitures.com>, and <amazonlivesale.com>, and <amazonlivesales.com>, and <amazonmobileoffer.com>, and <amazontodayoffer.com>, and <amazontodayoffers.com>, and <amazontodaysoffer.com>, and <amazontodaysoffers.com>, and <amazonwatche.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 26, 2019; the Forum received payment on July 26, 2019.
On July 30, 2019, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <amazon-apparels.com>, and <amazon-clothings.com>, and <amazon-decor.com>, and <amazon-decors.com>, and <amazon-electrical.com>, and <amazon-electricals.com>, and <amazon-furnishing.com>, and <amazon-furnishings.com>, and <amazon-furnitures.com>, and <amazon-todaysoffer.com>, and <amazonapparels.com>, and <amazonclothings.com>, and <amazonfurnitures.com>, and <amazonlivesale.com>, and <amazonlivesales.com>, and <amazonmobileoffer.com>, and <amazontodayoffer.com>, and <amazontodayoffers.com>, and <amazontodaysoffer.com>, and <amazontodaysoffers.com>, and <amazonwatche.com> domain names are registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 31, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 20, 2019 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@amazon-apparels.com, postmaster@amazon-clothings.com, postmaster@amazon-decor.com, postmaster@amazon-decors.com, postmaster@amazon-electrical.com, postmaster@amazon-electricals.com, postmaster@amazon-furnishing.com, postmaster@amazon-furnishings.com, postmaster@amazon-furnitures.com, postmaster@amazon-todaysoffer.com, postmaster@amazonapparels.com, postmaster@amazonclothings.com, postmaster@amazonfurnitures.com, postmaster@amazonlivesale.com, postmaster@amazonlivesales.com, postmaster@amazonmobileoffer.com, postmaster@amazontodayoffer.com, postmaster@amazontodayoffers.com, postmaster@amazontodaysoffer.com, postmaster@amazontodaysoffers.com, postmaster@amazonwatche.com. Also on July 31, 2019, 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 22, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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 made the following contentions.
Complainant is one of the world’s largest online retailers, offering products and services to more than 100 countries around the globe. Complainant has rights in the AMAZON mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,832,943 registered Apr. 13, 2004). See Compl. Ex. I. Respondent’s <amazon-apparels.com>, and <amazon-clothings.com>, and <amazon-decor.com>, and <amazon-decors.com>, and <amazon-electrical.com>, and <amazon-electricals.com>, and <amazon-furnishing.com>, and <amazon-furnishings.com>, and <amazon-furnitures.com>, and <amazon-todaysoffer.com>, and <amazonapparels.com>, and <amazonclothings.com>, and <amazonfurnitures.com>, and <amazonlivesale.com>, and <amazonlivesales.com>, and <amazonmobileoffer.com>, and <amazontodayoffer.com>, and <amazontodayoffers.com>, and <amazontodaysoffer.com>, and <amazontodaysoffers.com>, and <amazonwatche.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMAZON mark as Respondent incorporates the AMAZON mark in its entirety, while adding the generic terms “apparels,” “clothing’s,” “décor,” “decors,” “electrical,” “electricals,” “furnishing,” “furnishings,” “furniture’s,” “live,” “mobile,” “offer,” “offers,” “sale,” “sales,” “today,” “todays,” or “watche”, in some cases adds a hyphen, and always adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <amazon-apparels.com>, and <amazon-clothings.com>, and <amazon-decor.com>, and <amazon-decors.com>, and <amazon-electrical.com>, and <amazon-electricals.com>, and <amazon-furnishing.com>, and <amazon-furnishings.com>, and <amazon-furnitures.com>, and <amazon-todaysoffer.com>, and <amazonapparels.com>, and <amazonclothings.com>, and <amazonfurnitures.com>, and <amazonlivesale.com>, and <amazonlivesales.com>, and <amazonmobileoffer.com>, and <amazontodayoffer.com>, and <amazontodayoffers.com>, and <amazontodaysoffer.com>, and <amazontodaysoffers.com>, and <amazonwatche.com> domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to parked pages. Respondent also attempts to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant.
Respondent registered and used the <amazon-apparels.com>, and <amazon-clothings.com>, and <amazon-decor.com>, and <amazon-decors.com>, and <amazon-electrical.com>, and <amazon-electricals.com>, and <amazon-furnishing.com>, and <amazon-furnishings.com>, and <amazon-furnitures.com>, and <amazon-todaysoffer.com>, and <amazonapparels.com>, and <amazonclothings.com>, and <amazonfurnitures.com>, and <amazonlivesale.com>, and <amazonlivesales.com>, and <amazonmobileoffer.com>, and <amazontodayoffer.com>, and <amazontodayoffers.com>, and <amazontodaysoffer.com>, and <amazontodaysoffers.com>, and <amazonwatche.com> domain names in bad faith by attempting to sell the domain names to Complainant. Respondent’s registration of numerous infringing domain names over a short period of time is evidence of bad faith. Respondent has also failed to actually use the disputed domain names. Lastly, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AMAZON mark prior to registration of the disputed domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States company that is one of the world’s largest online retailers, offering products and services to more than 100 countries around the globe.
2. Complainant has established its trademark rights in the AMAZON mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,832,943 registered Apr. 13, 2004).
3. Respondent registered the disputed domain names as below.
|
Domain Name |
Registration Date |
|
<amazon-apparels.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazon-clothings.com> |
June 10, 2019 |
|
<amazon-décor.com> |
May 15, 2019 |
|
<amazon-decors.com> |
May 15, 2019 |
|
<amazon-electrical.com> |
May 25, 2019 |
|
<amazon-electricals.com> |
May 25, 2019 |
|
<amazon-furnishing.com> |
May 15, 2019 |
|
<amazon-furnishings.com> |
May 15, 2019 |
|
<amazon-furnitures.com> |
May 15, 2019 |
|
<amazon-todaysoffer.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazonapparels.com> |
May 15, 2019 |
|
<amazonclothings.com> |
June 10, 2019 |
|
<amazonfurnitures.com> |
May 15, 2019 |
|
<amazonlivesale.com> |
June 14, 2019 |
|
<amazonlivesales.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazonmobileoffer.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazontodayoffer.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazontodayoffers.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazontodaysoffer.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazontodaysoffers.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazonwatche.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
4. The disputed domain names resolve to parked pages and Respondent has also attempted to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant.
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 first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has rights in the AMAZON mark through its registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel a copy of its USPTO registration for the AMAZON mark (e.g. Reg. No. 2,832,943 registered Apr. 13, 2004). See Compl. Ex. I. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the AMAZON mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMAZON mark. Complainant argues that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMAZON mark. Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety, usually adding a generic term to the mark, in some cases adding a hyphen, and in all domain names, adds a “.com” gTLD. Registration of a domain name that includes a mark in its entirety and adds generic terms, hyphens and a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name form the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Daniel Handler v. Masanori Toriimoto / PLAN-B Co.,Ltd, FA 1778986 (Forum May 7, 2018) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy). Here, Complainant argues that Respondent incorporates the AMAZON mark in its entirety adding the generic terms “apparels,” “clothing’s,” “décor,” “decors,” “electrical,” “electricals,” “furnishing,” “furnishings,” “furniture’s,” “live,” “mobile,” “offer,” “offers,” “sale,” “sales,” “today,” “todays,” and ”watche.” In some cases, Complainant also contends that Respondent adds a hyphen and always adds the “.com” gTLD. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMAZON mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s AMAZON trademark and to use it in its domain names while adding a generic word and in some cases a hyphen, which does not negate a finding of confusing similarity with the trademark;
(b) Respondent registered the disputed domain names as below.
|
Domain Name |
Registration Date |
|
<amazon-apparels.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazon-clothings.com> |
June 10, 2019 |
|
<amazon-décor.com> |
May 15, 2019 |
|
<amazon-decors.com> |
May 15, 2019 |
|
<amazon-electrical.com> |
May 25, 2019 |
|
<amazon-electricals.com> |
May 25, 2019 |
|
<amazon-furnishing.com> |
May 15, 2019 |
|
<amazon-furnishings.com> |
May 15, 2019 |
|
<amazon-furnitures.com> |
May 15, 2019 |
|
<amazon-todaysoffer.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazonapparels.com> |
May 15, 2019 |
|
<amazonclothings.com> |
June 10, 2019 |
|
<amazonfurnitures.com> |
May 15, 2019 |
|
<amazonlivesale.com> |
June 14, 2019 |
|
<amazonlivesales.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazonmobileoffer.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazontodayoffer.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazontodayoffers.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazontodaysoffer.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazontodaysoffers.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
|
<amazonwatche.com> |
May 17, 2019 |
(c) The disputed domain names resolve to parked pages and Respondent has also attempted to sell the disputed domain names to Complainant;
(d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(e) Complainant argues Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <amazon-apparels.com>, and <amazon-clothings.com>, and <amazon-decor.com>, and <amazon-decors.com>, and <amazon-electrical.com>, and <amazon-electricals.com>, and <amazon-furnishing.com>, and <amazon-furnishings.com>, and <amazon-furnitures.com>, and <amazon-todaysoffer.com>, and <amazonapparels.com>, and <amazonclothings.com>, and <amazonfurnitures.com>, and <amazonlivesale.com>, and <amazonlivesales.com>, and <amazonmobileoffer.com>, and <amazontodayoffer.com>, and <amazontodayoffers.com>, and <amazontodaysoffer.com>, and <amazontodaysoffers.com>, and <amazonwatche.com> domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the AMAZON mark or register domain names using Complainant’s mark. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Monitor Trace” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the AMAZON mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(f) Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to parked pages. Failure to use a disputed domain name is generally not considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. xi long chen, FA 1786533 (Forum June 15, 2018) (“The disputed domain name resolves to a parked page with the message, “website coming soon!” The Panel finds that this use does not amount to a bona fide offering or good or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii) and Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect of the domain name.”). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with screenshots of Respondent’s domain names’ resolving webpages that shows that the pages have been “parked free of charge.” See Compl. Annex J. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii);
(g) Complainant argues that Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain names is further evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Offers to sell a disputed domain name may be evidence of a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA 1725052 (Forum May 9, 2017) (holding that “a general offer for sale… provides additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests” in a disputed domain name). Here, Complainant has provided an email chain where Respondent states that they will attempt to monetize the disputed domain names. See Compl. Annex K. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith by attempting to sell them to Complainant. Attempts to sell a disputed domain name may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See loanDepot.com, LLC v. sm goo, FA 1786848 (Forum June 12, 2018) (finding that where a respondent’s only employment of a substantially identical domain name is to attempt to sell the name, there exist sufficient grounds to find the respondent registered and used the name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)). Here, Complainant has provided an email chain where Respondent states that it will attempt to monetize the disputed domain names. See Compl. Annex K. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Secondly, Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in a short period of time which is evidence of bad faith registration and use. Registration of multiple domain names in a short period of time that appear in a single UDRP case may be evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See NIKE, Inc., and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. Emile Boulanger, FA 1732458 (Forum July 3, 2017) (finding that registration of several infringing domain names in a case satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Here, Respondent registered all twenty-one (21) domain names within a month and all appear in this proceeding. See Amend. Compl. Annex A. Therefore, the Pane finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Thirdly, Complainant argues that Respondent failed to use the disputed domain names. Failure to make use of a disputed domain name may be evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that the respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with screenshots of Respondent’s domain name’s resolving webpage that shows that the pages have been “parked free of charge.” See Compl. Annex J. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Fourthly, Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AMAZON mark prior to registration of the disputed domain names. Although panels have not generally regarded constructive notice to be sufficient for a finding of bad faith, actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering disputed domain name is adequate to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”). Use of a disputed domain that intends to create an association with complainant and its goods and services may be evidence of actual knowledge per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Snap Inc. v. Deepika Priyadarshinie / entsl, FA 1788600 (Forum June 21, 2018) (finding the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights in the claimed mark due to the fame of the mark, established by the complainant’s submission of numerous articles regarding the success of the complainant’s product). Here, Complainant has provided an email chain of Respondent telling Complainant it registered domain names that includes its AMAZON mark. See Compl Annex K. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AMAZON mark prior to registration of the disputed domain names which constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <amazon-apparels.com>, and <amazon-clothings.com>, and <amazon-decor.com>, and <amazon-decors.com>, and <amazon-electrical.com>, and <amazon-electricals.com>, and <amazon-furnishing.com>, and <amazon-furnishings.com>, and <amazon-furnitures.com>, and <amazon-todaysoffer.com>, and <amazonapparels.com>, and <amazonclothings.com>, and <amazonfurnitures.com>, and <amazonlivesale.com>, and <amazonlivesales.com>, and <amazonmobileoffer.com>, and <amazontodayoffer.com>, and <amazontodayoffers.com>, and <amazontodaysoffer.com>, and <amazontodaysoffers.com>, and <amazonwatche.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Panelist
Dated August 23, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page