Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Jagdeep Singh
Claim Number: FA2203001990171
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Jagdeep Singh (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <blinkapp.online>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 29, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 29, 2022.
On March 29, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <blinkapp.online> Domain Name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 30, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 19, 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@blinkapp.online. Also on March 30, 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 25, 2022 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant owns the trade mark BLINK registered, inter alia, in Singapore for home security goods and services since 2018.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BLINK trade mark containing it in its entirety adding only the generic term ‘app’ and the TLD “.online”.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant.
The web site connected to the Domain Name is using the Complainant’s BLINK trade mark in a very similar font and blue colour to the Complainant’s logo as a masthead to purport to offer competing security goods and services. The site uses the Complainant’s product and marketing images, the Complainant’s tagline “protect what matters most,” and statements which suggest that Complainant operates this website like “Our Products,” “Our weather-resistant security camera goes where wires can’t to help you protect your home day or night, rain or shine,” and “Power Blink Outdoor sustainably with our new Solar Panel Mount.” Prominent buttons entitled “Download Blink App” and “Setup New Camera” lead to fake download/setup progress bars which always resolve to an error message. Respondent misleads consumers seeking to download Complainant’s app or set up Complainant’s cameras into believing an error has occurred so they will contact Respondent via chat believing they are contacting Complainant. The footer for one of the error messages displays Complainant’s registered ECHO and Alexa Logo trademarks. The site, therefore, seeks to deceive customers in apparent phishing attempts. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith impersonating the Complainant, disrupting its business and diverting Internet users for commercial gain. Phishing is bad faith per se.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant owns the trade mark BLINK registered, inter alia, in Singapore for home security goods and services since 2018.
The Domain Name registered in 2022 has been used for a site offering competing security goods and services which purports to be an official site of the 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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s BLINK mark (registered, inter alia, in Singapore for home security goods and services since 2018) the generic term “app” and the TLD “.online”.
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v. Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). Accordingly the Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term “app” to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's BLINK trade mark pursuant to the Policy.
The gTLD “.online” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.”).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its BLINK mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence that the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).The use of the Domain Name is commercial and so cannot be legitimate noncommercial fair use.
The web site attached to the Domain Name uses the Complainant's BLINK mark as a masthead in a similar font and colour to the Complainant’s logo to purport to offer competing home security goods and services. The site also uses images language, and other registered trademarks of the Complainant in a confusing manner inviting contact from Internet users. As such, the web site appears official and/or authorized and appears to be designed to deceive customers. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc. v. Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.). See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (finding that ‘Passing off in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use’)
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to use the Complainant’s trade marks in this way.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site for competing home security products and services is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it purports to offer competing home security products and services under the Complainant’s BLINK mark in a similar colour and font to the Complainant’s logo as a masthead and uses confusing language and images including other registered trademarks of the Complainant to appear to be an official site of the Complainant. The use of the Complainant’s logos and other registered marks of the Complainant shows actual knowledge of the Complainant, its rights, business and services.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and products and services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”).
Further under Policy 4(a)(iii), using a disputed domain name to phish for user information is generally demonstrative of bad faith. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (“[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy 4(a)(iii).”).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <blinkapp.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page