Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Fateh Singh / TechBoy Solutions
Claim Number: FA2109001964646
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Fateh Singh / TechBoy Solutions (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <blinklogiin.com>, registered with Google 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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 21, 2021; the Forum received payment on September 21, 2021.
On September 22, 2021, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blinklogiin.com> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 September 23, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 13, 2021 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@blinklogiin.com. Also on September 23, 2021, 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 October 18, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Complainant is one of the world’s leading retailers, offering products and services to more than 100 countries around the globe. Complainant has rights in the BLINK mark through its registration of the mark with various countries around the world.
2. Respondent’s <blinklogiin.com>[i] domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLINK mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “logiin” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
3. Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <blinklogiin.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the mark in any way.
4. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Instead, Respondent’s domain name resolves to a webpage where Respondent uses the BLINK mark to host chat and phone-based support services associated with the mark.
5. Respondent registered and used the <blinklogiin.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant by resolving to a webpage that uses the BLINK mark to host chat and phone-based support services.
6. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark due to the use of the mark in commerce.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the BLINK mark. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLINK mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the <blinklogiin.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and uses the domain name 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 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”).
Complainant has rights in the BLINK mark through its registration of the mark with the multiple trademark agencies and countries around the world. Registration of a mark with multiple trademark authorities is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. YINGFENG WANG, FA 1568531 (Forum Aug. 21, 2014) (“Complainant has rights in the ALIBABA mark under the Policy through registration with trademark authorities in numerous countries around the world.”). Complainant has provided the Panel with its trademark registrations from various countries around the world. Therefore, Complainant has shown rights in the BLINK mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <blinklogiin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLINK mark. Registration of a domain name that contains a mark in its entirety and adds a generic word and a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from 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)). Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “logiin” along with the “.com” gTLD. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent’s <blinklogiin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the <blinklogiin.com> domain name. This allegation must be supported with a prima facie showing by Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). After a complainant successfully makes a prima facie case, a respondent is faced with the burden of proving it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Forum Feb. 13, 2007), the panel held that when a complainant produces a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c); see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent.). The Panel holds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant argues Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <blinklogiin.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the BLINK mark or register domain names using Complainant’s mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a 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 a 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 “Fateh Singh / TechBoy Solutions” and there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the BLINK mark or was commonly known by the <blinklogiin.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <blinklogiin.com> domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s domain name resolves to a webpage where Respondent uses the BLINK mark to host chat and phone-based support services associated with the mark. Use of a domain name incorporating a complainant’s mark to host services associated with a complainant’s products and services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Gumwand Inc. v. jared brading, FA 1794058 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding that use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website which purported to sell chewing gum-removal equipment which was either counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods, or goods which competed directly with Complainant’s chewing gum-removal equipment business, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)). Complainant has provided the Panel with a screenshot of Respondent’s <blinklogiin.com> domain name that shows Complainant’s BLINK mark and offers support services associated with the mark. Therefore, Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the <blinklogiin.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to pass off as Complainant by resolving to a webpage that uses the BLINK mark to host chat and phone-based support services. Use of a domain name incorporating a complainant’s mark to resolve to a webpage that displays a complainant’s mark and offers services related to the mark may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant’s business). Complainant has provided the Panel with a screenshot of Respondent’s <blinklogiin.com> domain name that shows Complainant’s BLINK mark and offers support services associated with the mark. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent registered and uses the <blinklogiin.com> domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark due to the use of the mark in commerce. Actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark prior to registering the <blinklogiin.com> 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.”). Long standing use and fame of a mark may show that a respondent had actual knowledge of the mark. See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. ALEXANDER DE ALMEIDA LOPES, FA 1705267 (Forum Jan. 9, 2017) (finding the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant’s COACHELLA mark when it registered and used the <coachellastuff.com> domain name—and thus did so in bad faith—because the complainant presented adequate evidence that its mark was well-known and famous). Complainant has provided the Panel with news reports and its use of the mark in commerce, thus demonstrating that it can be reasonably inferred that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark prior to registering the <blinklogiin.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark which constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blinklogiin.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: October 25, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page