Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Glova Karl / leo chen
Claim Number: FA2203001988841
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Glova Karl / leo chen (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <blinkcamera.shop>, <blinkfactorysales.shop>, and <blinkoverstock-sales.club>, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 18, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 18, 2022.
On March 21, 2022, Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blinkcamera.shop>, <blinkfactorysales.shop>, and <blinkoverstock-sales.club> domain names are registered with Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 March 22, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 11, 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@blinkcamera.shop, postmaster@blinkfactorysales.shop, postmaster@blinkoverstock-sales.club. Also on March 22, 2022, 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 April 17, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Complainant alleges that notwithstanding differences in the domain registration records for the at-issue domain names the at issue domain names are nevertheless effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity. 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.”
The domain names in the present dispute are similarly constructed as each domain name starts with Complainant’s trademark followed by generic terms. Each domain name addresses a website substantially similar to Blink and Amazon branded online store. Additionally, the at-issue domain names were registered within an 18 day period and the nominal registrants have each been found to have used multiple aliases in prior domain name disputes involving Complainant. While it is possible that the domain names’ underlying registrants may have different WHOIS data, the at-issue domain names clearly appear to be related to, or controlled by, the same person, persons, or entity. Significantly, Complainant’s contention that the domain names’ registrants be treated as a single entity is unopposed. Therefore, the Panel will treat the domain names’ registrants as a single entity for the purposes of this proceeding. The named registrants will collectively be referred to as Respondent.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant is a conglomerate with rights in a security company business.
Complainant has rights in the BLINK mark through its registrations with various trademark agencies (e.g. Japanese Patent Office (“JPO”); German Patent and Trademark Office (“GPTMO”).
Respondent’s <blinkcamera.shop>, <blinkfactorysales.shop>, and <blinkoverstock-sales.club> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the mark as they incorporate the mark in its entirety and add a variety of words and the “.club” and “.shop” generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <blinkcamera.shop>, <blinkfactorysales.shop>, and <blinkoverstock-sales.club> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its BLINK mark in any domain name. Respondent does not use the domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but passes off as Complainant and sells competing goods in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and uses the <blinkcamera.shop>, <blinkfactorysales.shop>, and <blinkoverstock-sales.club> domain names in bad faith. Respondent has exhibited a pattern of bad faith registration and use. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business for commercial gain by passing off as Complainant and offering competing goods. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark. Respondent phishes for user information with the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the BLINK trademark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in the BLINK trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and offer competing goods in furtherance of a phishing scheme.
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 at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has multiple national trademark registration for its BLINK trademark including registrations with JPO and GPTMO. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) (“Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world.”); see also, Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Taro Yamada / Personal, FA 1582613 (Forum Nov. 25, 2014) (finding that Complainant’s JPO registrations satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).); see also, teamtechnik Maschinen und Anlagen GmbH v. Edgar Bechtle / Ebechtle LLC, FA 1652306 (Forum Jan. 28, 2016) (finding rights in the TEAMTECHNIK mark pursuant to Complainant’s trademark registration with GPTMO).
Respondent’s <blinkcamera.shop>, <blinkfactorysales.shop>, and <blinkoverstock-sales.club> domain names each contain Complainant’s BLINK trademark followed by one or more suggestive terms, with all followed by the top-level domain name “.shop” or “.club.” The differences between each at-issue domain names and Complainant’s BLINK trademark are insufficient to distinguish any of them from BLINK for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <blinkcamera.shop>, <blinkfactorysales.shop>, and <blinkoverstock-sales.club> domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s BLINK trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Empowered Medical Solutions, Inc. d/b/a QRS-Direct and QRS Magnovit AG v. NULL NULL / QUANTRON RESONANCE SYSTEMS / JIM ANDERSON / HTR / unknown HTR / HTR, FA 1784937 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Adding or removing descriptive terms or a gTLD is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of each at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of any at‑issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain names identifies their individual nominal registrants as either “Glova Karl” or “leo chen” and record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by any of the at-issue domain names. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by any of the at-issue domain names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s at-issue domain names have all addressed fake BLINK/AMAZON-branded online stores which prominently display the Blink Logo and the Amazon Logo. Apparently, such stores may only purport to actually sell goods under Complainant’s trademark. Respondent’s use of the domain names in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum Feb. 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
Respondent’s at-issue domain names are also used to phish for private information. In order to “purchase” items on Respondent’s online stores users are required to submit confidential information to Respondent. Using the domain names to phish for private data is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of each at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <blinkcamera.shop>, <blinkfactorysales.shop>, and <blinkoverstock-sales.club> domain names were each registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent has previously suffered multiple adverse UDRP decisions as a respondent. Respondent has also registered Complainant’s trademarks in multiple domain names. Respondent’s pattern of cybersquatting indicates Respondent’s bad faith regarding the instant dispute pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA1209001464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).; see also DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) (“The record contains evidence of Respondents previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”).
Next, Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by using its confusingly similar domain names to pass itself off as Complainant and compete with Complainant’s BLINK product. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv), using a the at-issue domain names to host competing products or services shows bad faith registration and use. See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA1506001623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Additionally, Respondent uses the domain names to phish for personal data as Respondent requires that <blinkcamera.shop>, <blinkfactorysales.shop>, and <blinkoverstock-sales.club> website visitors submit their personal data to Respondent in order to make “purchases”. Thereby, Respondent further shows its bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BLINK mark at the time it registered <blinkcamera.shop>, <blinkfactorysales.shop>, and <blinkoverstock-sales.club> as a domain names. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of the BLINK trademark; from Respondent’s incorporation of Complainant’s trademark into the at-issue domain names along with terms suggestive of Complainant’s business; and from Respondent’s use of the domain names to impersonate Complainant and trade off Complainant’s BLINK trademark to compete with Complainant and phish for private information as discussed elsewhere herein. Respondent’s registration and use of <blinkcamera.shop>, <blinkfactorysales.shop>, and <blinkoverstock-sales.club> with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in such domain names further shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blinkcamera.shop>, <blinkfactorysales.shop>, and <blinkoverstock-sales.club> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 18, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page