Zoox.live

The timeline behind zoox.live

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Zoox, Inc. v. curtis dennis Case No. D2023-2552 1. The Parties The Complainant is Zoox, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Lee & Hayes, PC, United States. The Respondent is curtis dennis, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <zoox.live> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 13, 2023. On June 14, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 14, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (zoox.live) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 26, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 26, 2023. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 27, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 17, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 26, 2023. page 2 The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on July 31, 2023. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is an independent subsidiary of Amazon and makes autonomous vehicles designed for use in ride-hailing services. It owns the mark ZOOX which it has registered in a number of forms in various jurisdictions, including the European Union (Reg. No. 018263002, registered on December 10, 2020). According to the WhoIs information, the disputed domain name was registered on May 11, 2023. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to create email addresses to impersonate the Complainant in an attempt to steal personal information from job applicants. Specifically, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent messages job applicants claiming to be “Zoox Inc.” The Respondent also attaches a “pre-job briefing” application utilizing the Complainant’s logo. At the end of the “interview process” the Respondent then asks the applicants to enter their personal information. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Id. This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the ZOOX mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations. page 3 The disputed domain name incorporates the ZOOX mark in its entirety. This is sufficient for showing that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent (with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; AXA SA v. Huade Wang, WIPO Case No. D2022-1289. On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) use of the disputed domain name in the context of this purported fraud scheme cannot confer rights or legitimate interests, (2) the Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to register the disputed domain name, and (3) there is no evidence the Respondent is using the disputed domain name or a trademark corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. And nothing in the record otherwise tilts the balance in the Respondent’s favor. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Noting the Complainant’s unrebutted declaration that the Respondent promptly began using the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant (going so far as to use its logo in fraudulent email messages), it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of the ZOOX mark when it registered the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, such a showing is sufficient to establish bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. Bad faith use is likewise clear from the Respondent’s activities of using the disputed domain name to send fraudulent email messages. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully met this third UDRP element. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <zoox.live> be transferred to the Complainant. /Evan D. Brown/ Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: August 22, 2023

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.