Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. fateh singh / TechBoy Solutions / Madan tbs
Claim Number: FA2111001973193
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is fateh singh / TechBoy Solutions / Madan tbs ("Respondent"), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <ringdoorbell.info> and <blinkfi.site>, 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 November 14, 2021; the Forum received payment on November 14, 2021.
On November 15, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <ringdoorbell.info> and <blinkfi.site> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC; that fateh singh / TechBoy Solutions is the current registrant of <ringdoorbell.info>; and that Madan tbs / TechBoy Solutions is the current registrant of <blinkfi.site>. 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 November 16, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 6, 2021 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@ringdoorbell.info, postmaster@blinkfi.site. Also on November 16, 2021, 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 9, 2021, 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.
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively the same person or entity operating under multiple aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."
There are several factors that are normally considered when a complainant is filed against multiple respondents:
[P]anels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario.
Panels have considered a range of factors, typically present in some combination, as useful to determining whether such consolidation is appropriate, such as similarities in or relevant aspects of (i) the registrants’ identity(ies) including pseudonyms, (ii) the registrants’ contact information including email address(es), postal address(es), or phone number(s), including any pattern of irregularities, (iii) relevant IP addresses, name servers, or webhost(s), (iv) the content or layout of websites corresponding to the disputed domain names, (v) the nature of the marks at issue (e.g., where a registrant targets a specific sector), (vi) any naming patterns in the disputed domain names (e.g., <mark-country> or <mark-goods>), (vii) the relevant language/scripts of the disputed domain names particularly where they are the same as the mark(s) at issue, (viii) any changes by the respondent relating to any of the above items following communications regarding the disputed domain name(s), (ix) any evidence of respondent affiliation with respect to the ability to control the disputed domain name(s), (x) any (prior) pattern of similar respondent behavior, or (xi) other arguments made by the complainant and/or disclosures by the respondent(s).
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.11 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/.
Complainant asserts that the identities under which the disputed domain names are registered are aliases for a single entity, noting (among other commonalities) that both include the same organization, TechBoy Solution; the addresses are nearly identical; the domain names are registered with the same registrar; and both domain names are being used to promote technical support schemes for Complainant's camera brands. The Panel also notes that notice of this proceeding has been transmitted via email, post, and fax to the addresses and phone numbers listed on both domain name registrations, and that no objection has been received to Complainant's request that the registrants of the disputed domain names be treated as a single entity for purposes of this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are under common control, and that it is therefore appropriate under Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules to include them in a single proceeding under the Policy.
A. Complainant
Complainant is one of the world's largest online retailers. Complainant and its predecessors in interest have offered cameras and home security products and services under the RING and BLINK marks since 2014. Complainant owns trademark registrations for RING and BLINK in standard character form and otherwise in various jurisdictions, including multiple United States trademark registrations for RING and registrations for BLINK in Japan, Singapore, and Switzerland.
Respondent registered the disputed domain names <ringdoorbell.info> and <blinkfi.site> in February and September 2021. The domain names resolve to websites entitled "Ring app login | Ring app | Ring account | Rest the ring doorbell" and "Blink Camera Setup | Blink Camera Login," both of which promote technical support services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Each website includes multiple instances of Complainant's RING or BLINK mark, along with images of Complainant's products. The website at <blinkfi.site> also includes what Complainant describes as a "knockoff" of its BLINK logo. Neither website includes any source identifiers other than Complainant's marks, and both include only an inconspicuous disclaimer of any relationship "with any third party unless specified." Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, is not affiliated with Complainant, and has not been licensed to use Complainant's marks.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain names <ringdoorbell.info> and <blinkfi.site> are confusingly similar to its RING and BLINK marks; 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, supra, § 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <ringdoorbell.info> incorporates Complainant's registered RING trademark, adding the generic term "doorbell" (which refers to a product for which Complainant uses the mark) and the ".info" top-level domain. The disputed domain name <blinkfi.site> similarly incorporates Complainant's registered BLINK trademark, adding the letters "fi" and the ".site" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's marks. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Martha Montemayor, FA 1947542 (Forum June 18, 2021) (finding <ring-doorbells.com> confusingly similar to RING); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Fateh Singh, FA 1970934 (Forum Nov. 29, 2021) (finding <blinkcam.site> confusingly similar to BLINK); Citigroup Inc. v. SZK.com, FA 672087 (Forum May 24, 2006) (finding <citifi.com> confusingly similar to CITI). The Panel considers each of the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, 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).
Each of the disputed domain name incorporates one of Complainant's registered marks without authorization. The domain names are being used for misleading websites that attempt to pass off as Complainant for the purposes of promoting 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. Fateh Singh, FA 1970934, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Fateh Singh / TechBoy Solutions, FA 1964646 (Forum Oct. 25, 2021) (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the 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 names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a 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."
The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered marks without authorization, and they are being used for misleading websites that attempt to pass off as Complainant for the purposes of promoting services that compete with those offered by Complainant. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Fateh Singh, FA 1970934, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Fateh Singh / TechBoy Solutions, FA 1964646, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ringdoorbell.info> and <blinkfi.site> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: December 10, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page