Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. HUA ZHANG
Claim Number: FA2112001977753
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <blinkonline.shop>, registered with Dynadot, 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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 20, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 20, 2021.
On December 22, 2021, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blinkonline.shop> domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot, 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 December 27, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 18, 2022, 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@blinkonline.shop. Also on December 27, 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 January 20, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson 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
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 multiple trademark authorities. Respondent’s <blinkonline.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLINK mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “online” along with the “.shop” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <blinkonline.shop> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the BLINK mark in any way. 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 that displays and offers third-party competitors’ products for sale.
Respondent registered and used the <blinkonline.shop> domain name in bad faith as Respondent’s domain name resolves to a webpage that displays products that compete with Complainant’s business. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark due to the longstanding use and fame of the mark in commerce.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), of Seattle, WA, USA. Complainant is the owner of numerous international registrations for the mark BLINK which it has used continuously since at least as early as 2014 in connection with its cameras and smart home security devices as well as related services. Complaint also sells merchandise at its website <blinkforhome.com>.
Respondent is Hua Zhang (“Respondent”), of Wuhan, China. Respondent’s registrar’s address is not listed but a South Dakota, USA telephone number is provided. The Panel notes that the <blinkonline.shop> domain name was registered on or about November 4, 2021.
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 claims to have rights in the BLINK mark through its registration of the mark with multiple trademark agencies around the world. Registration of a mark with multiple trademark authorities around the world is sufficient to show 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.”). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with multiple trademark registrations from around the world. The Panel here finds that Complainant has rights in the BLINK mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <blinkonline.shop> 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 term 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)). Here, Complainant argues that Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “online” along with the “.shop” gTLD. The Panel here finds that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has proven this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel notes 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 here finds that Complainant has set forth the requisite prima facie case.
Complainant argues Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <blinkonline.shop> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed 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 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 “Hua Zhang” and there is no other evidence to indicate that Respondent was authorized to use the BLINK mark or was commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel here finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed 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 that displays and offers third-party competitors’ products for sale. Use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers products and services that compete with a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with a screenshot of Respondent’s <blinkonline.shop> domain name resolving webpage that shows offers for products and services that compete with Complainant and its BLINK mark. The Panel here finds that 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).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the <blinkonline.shop> domain name in bad faith as Respondent’s domain name resolves to a webpage that displays products that compete with Complainant’s business. Use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers a competing product or service to a complainant’s business and mark may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to reference the complainant’s products and offer competitive and/or counterfeit products). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with a screenshot of Respondent’s <blinkonline.shop> domain name resolving webpage that shows offers for products and services that compete with Complainant and its BLINK mark. The Panel here finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
DECISION
As the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blinkonline.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: February 3, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page