Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Milen Radumilo
Claim Number: FA2210002016177
Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas. Respondent is Milen Radumilo (“Respondent”), ro.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <aboutamazon.us>, <amazon-card.us>, <amazon-co-jp.us>, <amazon-co.us>, <amazon-deals.us>, <amazon-kindle-fire.us>, <amazonamazon.us>, <amazonbestseller.us>, <amazonfindorder.us>, <amazongames.us>, <amazonhdmi.us>, <amazonj.us>, <amazonone.us>, <amazonseller.us>, <amazonsmile.us>, <amazonsupport.us>, <amazontrackorder.us>, <aoruslaptop15gxcinamazon.us>, <aws-amazon.us>, <bamazon.us>, <emedalashesamazon.us>, and <fujifilmxt4amazon.us>, registered with CommuniGal Communication Ltd. and 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 Forum electronically on October 14, 2022; Forum received payment on October 14, 2022.
On October 18, 2022 and October 20, 2022, CommuniGal Communication Ltd. and Dynadot, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <aboutamazon.us>, <amazon-card.us>, <amazon-co-jp.us>, <amazon-co.us>, <amazon-deals.us>, <amazon-kindle-fire.us>, <amazonamazon.us>, <amazonbestseller.us>, <amazonfindorder.us>, <amazongames.us>, <amazonhdmi.us>, <amazonj.us>, <amazonone.us>, <amazonseller.us>, <amazonsmile.us>, <amazonsupport.us>, <amazontrackorder.us>, <aoruslaptop15gxcinamazon.us>, <aws-amazon.us>, <bamazon.us>, <emedalashesamazon.us>, and <fujifilmxt4amazon.us> domain names are registered with CommuniGal Communication Ltd. and Dynadot, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. CommuniGal Communication Ltd. and Dynadot, LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the CommuniGal Communication Ltd. and Dynadot, LLC registration agreements and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On October 27, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 16, 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@aboutamazon.us, postmaster@amazon-card.us, postmaster@amazon-co-jp.us, postmaster@amazon-co.us, postmaster@amazon-deals.us, postmaster@amazon-kindle-fire.us, postmaster@amazonamazon.us, postmaster@amazonbestseller.us, postmaster@amazonfindorder.us, postmaster@amazongames.us, postmaster@amazonhdmi.us, postmaster@amazonj.us, postmaster@amazonone.us, postmaster@amazonseller.us, postmaster@amazonsmile.us, postmaster@amazonsupport.us, postmaster@amazontrackorder.us, postmaster@aoruslaptop15gxcinamazon.us, postmaster@aws-amazon.us, postmaster@bamazon.us, postmaster@emedalashesamazon.us, postmaster@fujifilmxt4amazon.us. Also on October 27, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 22, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Amazon Technologies, Inc., is a prominent online retailer.
Complainant has rights in the AMAZON mark and related marks through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <aboutamazon.us>, <amazon-card.us>, <amazon-co-jp.us>, <amazon-co.us>, <amazon-deals.us>, <amazon-kindle-fire.us>, <amazonamazon.us>, <amazonbestseller.us>, <amazonfindorder.us>, <amazongames.us>, <amazonhdmi.us>, <amazonj.us>, <amazonone.us>, <amazonseller.us>, <amazonsmile.us>, <amazonsupport.us>, <amazontrackorder.us>, <aoruslaptop15gxcinamazon.us>, <aws-amazon.us>, <bamazon.us>, <emedalashesamazon.us>, and <fujifilmxt4amazon.us> domain names are virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because each one incorporates the AMAZON mark in its entirety and adds generic terms, hyphens, extraneous letters, and the “.us” country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”).
Respondent has no legitimate interests in the at-issue domain names. Respondent does not own a trademark identical to the at-issue domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by any at-issue domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the AMAZON mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the at-issue domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, some of the domain names address inactive webpages. Some of the domain names resolve to webpages that offer malware for download. Respondent uses other at-issue domain names in conjunction with a phishing scheme. Some at-issue domain names resolve to webpages offering third-party links to competing or unrelated goods or services. Some even resolve to Complainant’s own website. Respondent holds out many at-issue domain names for sale.
Respondent registered or uses the domain names in bad faith. Respondent offers the domain names for sale. Respondent has previously been involved in UDRP proceedings and registered multiple domains including Complainant’s trademark. Respondent registered the domain names in order to disrupt Complainant’s business and divert customers for commercial gain. Respondent registered the domain name in order to participate in phishing. Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to redirect users to Complainant’s own website. Finally, Respondent registered the at-issue domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AMAZON mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the AMAZON mark.
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 AMAZON trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain names to address webpages for a variety of purposes all unauthorized by 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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 a USPTO registration along with multiple other national trademark registrations for its AMAZON trademark. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the AMAZON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 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 Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jimmy Yau, FA 1764034 (Forum Jan. 25, 2018) (“The Panel finds that complainant has rights in BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO.”).
Respondent’s <aboutamazon.us>, <amazon-card.us>, <amazon-co-jp.us>, <amazon-co.us>, <amazon-deals.us>, <amazon-kindle-fire.us>, <amazonamazon.us>, <amazonbestseller.us>, <amazonfindorder.us>, <amazongames.us>, <amazonhdmi.us>, <amazonj.us>, <amazonone.us>, <amazonseller.us>, <amazonsmile.us>, <amazonsupport.us>, <amazontrackorder.us>, <aoruslaptop15gxcinamazon.us>, <aws-amazon.us>, <bamazon.us>, <emedalashesamazon.us>, and <fujifilmxt4amazon.us> domain names each contain Complainant’s AMAZON trademark and further includes various generic characters or text some of which may be part of or allude to other marks owned by Complainant. Each domain name concludes with the “.us” top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent’s domain names and Complainant’s AMAZON trademark are insufficient to distinguish any of the domain names from AMAZON for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <aboutamazon.us>, <amazon-card.us>, <amazon-co-jp.us>, <amazon-co.us>, <amazon-deals.us>, <amazon-kindle-fire.us>, <amazonamazon.us>, <amazonbestseller.us>, <amazonfindorder.us>, <amazongames.us>, <amazonhdmi.us>, <amazonj.us>, <amazonone.us>, <amazonseller.us>, <amazonsmile.us>, <amazonsupport.us>, <amazontrackorder.us>, <aoruslaptop15gxcinamazon.us>, <aws-amazon.us>, <bamazon.us>, <emedalashesamazon.us>, and <fujifilmxt4amazon.us> domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s 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 Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy).
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).
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 legitimate interests in respect of any at‑issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain names identifies the domain names’ registrant as “Milen Radumilo.” The record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by any of the at-issue domain names. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <aboutamazon.us>, <amazon-card.us>, <amazon-co-jp.us>, <amazon-co.us>, <amazon-deals.us>, <amazon-kindle-fire.us>, <amazonamazon.us>, <amazonbestseller.us>, <amazonfindorder.us>, <amazongames.us>, <amazonhdmi.us>, <amazonj.us>, <amazonone.us>, <amazonseller.us>, <amazonsmile.us>, <amazonsupport.us>, <amazontrackorder.us>, <aoruslaptop15gxcinamazon.us>, <aws-amazon.us>, <bamazon.us>, <emedalashesamazon.us>, or <fujifilmxt4amazon.us> 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 <aboutamazon.us>, <amazon-card.us>, <amazon-co-jp.us>, <amazon-co.us>, <amazon-deals.us>, <amazon-kindle-fire.us>, <amazonamazon.us>, <amazonbestseller.us>, <amazonfindorder.us>, <amazongames.us>, <amazonhdmi.us>, <amazonj.us>, <amazonone.us>, <amazonseller.us>, <amazonsmile.us>, <amazonsupport.us>, <amazontrackorder.us>, <aoruslaptop15gxcinamazon.us>, <aws-amazon.us>, <bamazon.us>, <emedalashesamazon.us>, and <fujifilmxt4amazon.us> are used for various purposes however are used for either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), or a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent’s use of the domain names include holding passively[See Nutri/System IPHC, Inc. v. Usama Ayub, FA1725806 (Forum June 5, 2017) (holding that “Respondent does not use the <nutrisystemturbo.us> domain for a bona fide offering of goods or services because the domain name resolves to a website that currently is designated as ‘under construction.’”)]; hosting hyperlinks to Complainant’s competition [See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”)]; distributing malware [See Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Padonack, FA 1043687 (Forum Sept. 6, 2007) (holding that the use of a disputed domain name to host a website that attempted to download a virus when accessed did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name)]; phishing [See Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA1501001600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that the respondent’s apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”)]; redirecting to Complainant’s genuine website; [See Medline, Inc. v. Domain Active Pty. Ltd., FA 139718 (Forum Feb. 6, 2003) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent merely redirected the <wwwmedline.com> domain name to the complainant’s own website at <medline.com>)]; and generally offering many of the domain names for sale for an amount in excess of Respondent’s reasonable costs (See 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA 1725052 (Forum May 9, 2017) (holding that “a general offer for sale… provides additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests” in a disputed domain name)].
Given the forgoing and absent any contrary evidence from Respondent, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and shows Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain names under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First, Respondent has suffered adverse findings as a respondent in numerous UDRP disputes. Respondent’s prior cybersquatting demonstrates a pattern of bad faith domain name registration and is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith in the instant case as to each confusingly similar at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bin g Glu, FA 1036129 (Forum Sept. 2, 2007) (holding prior UDRP proceedings were sufficient evidence of a pattern of bad faith registrations); see also, 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)).
Next and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent seeks to sell most of the at-issue domain names by offering such domain names for sale for amounts in excess of their reasonable associate costs. The Panel deduces that all of the at-issue domain names are likewise available for sale. Respondent offer to sell the domain names shows Respondent’s bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Diners Club Int’l Ltd. v. Domain Admin******It's all in the name******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that when the domain name itself notes that it is “available for lease or sale,” evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) can be inferred from the fact that “the sole value of the [<wwwdinersclub.com] domain name is dictated by its relation to the complainant’s registered DINERS CLUB mark).
As also mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, some of the at-issue domain names are used to present links to Complainant’s competition. Such use is disruptive to Complainant’s business and an attempt to capitalize on Complainant’s trademark to attract internet users to Respondent’s domain names for commercial gain pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) (“Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another.”); see also Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business).
Additionally, some the domain names address webpages offering malware or display phishing warnings. Phishing may, in itself, constitute evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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).”); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA1504001617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) (“In addition, Respondent’s undenied use of the websites resolving from the contested domain names to distribute malware and other malicious downloads further illustrates its bad faith in the registration and use of those domain names.”).
Some of the domain names redirect internet users to Complainant’s genuine website. Use of the domain names in this manner is also indicative of Respondent’s intent to register and use the at-issue domain names in bad faith. See Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Banks, D2003-0293 (WIPO June 6, 2003) (concluding that respondent acted in bad faith by using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to Complainant’s own website because it “interferes with Complainant’s ability to control the use of its own trademarks on the Internet” . . . [and] creates a risk that Respondent could collect and use data about Internet users intending to access Complainant’s website”).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AMAZON mark when it registered <aboutamazon.us>, <amazon-card.us>, <amazon-co-jp.us>, <amazon-co.us>, <amazon-deals.us>, <amazon-kindle-fire.us>, <amazonamazon.us>, <amazonbestseller.us>, <amazonfindorder.us>, <amazongames.us>, <amazonhdmi.us>, <amazonj.us>, <amazonone.us>, <amazonseller.us>, <amazonsmile.us>, <amazonsupport.us>, <amazontrackorder.us>, <aoruslaptop15gxcinamazon.us>, <aws-amazon.us>, <bamazon.us>, <emedalashesamazon.us>, and <fujifilmxt4amazon.us> as domain names. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s registration of multiple domain names containing Complainant’s trademark. Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain names with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in AMAZON shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain names 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 name).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <aboutamazon.us>, <amazon-card.us>, <amazon-co-jp.us>, <amazon-co.us>, <amazon-deals.us>, <amazon-kindle-fire.us>, <amazonamazon.us>, <amazonbestseller.us>, <amazonfindorder.us>, <amazongames.us>, <amazonhdmi.us>, <amazonj.us>, <amazonone.us>, <amazonseller.us>, <amazonsmile.us>, <amazonsupport.us>, <amazontrackorder.us>, <aoruslaptop15gxcinamazon.us>, <aws-amazon.us>, <bamazon.us>, <emedalashesamazon.us>, and <fujifilmxt4amazon.us> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: November 22, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page