Amaz0n14.com + 13 more domains

The timeline behind amaz0n14.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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

DECISION Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. meng li / chen xiansheng / chenxiansheng / Manlidy GNN / luoli / luo li Claim Number: FA2208002007990 PARTIES Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondents are meng li / chen xiansheng / chenxiansheng / Manlidy GNN / luoli / luo li (“Respondents”), China and Singapore. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <amaz0n14.com>, <amazon14.com>, <amazon43.com>, <amazon45.com>, <amazon46.com>, <amazon54.com>, <amazon57.com>, <amazon59.com>, <amazon63.com>, <amazon67.com>, <amazon84.com>, <amazon120.com>, <amazon125.com> and <amazon127.com> (“the Domain Names”), registered with Gname.Com Pte. Ltd.; Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S.; Ownregistrar, Inc. and Namesilo, Llc (“the Registrars”). PANEL 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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 10, 2022. The Forum received payment on August 10, 2022. On August 10, 11, 19 and 24, 2022, the Registrars confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the Domain Names are registered with the Registrars and that Respondents are the current registrants of the names. The Registrars have verified that Respondents are bound by their registration agreements and have thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). The Gname.Com Pte. Ltd. registration agreement is in English and Chinese. The other registration agreements are in English. On August 26, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including an English and Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 15, 2022 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondents’ registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@amaz0n14.com, postmaster@amazon14.com, postmaster@amazon43.com, postmaster@amazon45.com, postmaster@amazon46.com, postmaster@amazon54.com, postmaster@amazon57.com, postmaster@amazon59.com, postmaster@amazon63.com, postmaster@amazon67.com, postmaster@amazon84.com, postmaster@amazon120.com, postmaster@amazon125.com, postmaster@amazon127.com. Also on August 26, 2022, the English and Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondents of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondents via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents’ registrations as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondents, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On August 28, 2022, Respondents communicated informally to the Forum and Complainant responded next day. On September 26, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 Respondents. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondents to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Paragraph 3(c) of 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”. Paragraph 1(d) of the Forum's Supplemental Rules defines “The Holder of a Domain Name Registration” as “the single person or entity listed in the registration information, as verified by the Registrar, at the time of commencement” and sub-paragraph 1(d)(i) provides that a Complainant wishing to make an argument for a single Respondent having multiple aliases must comply with Supplemental Rules 4(c) and 17(a)(i). For the following reasons Complainant contends that the Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases: thirteen of the fourteen Domain Names (all except <amazon63.com>) resolve or have resolved to a substantially identical landing page displaying Complainant’s “A” logo and a login within a phone silhouette; the landing page for <amazon63.com> is an “E-COMMERCE” login screen within a phone silhouette that is substantially identical to the phone silhouettes displayed at the remaining domain names; the domain name <amazon14.com> has redirected to <amaz0n14.com>, <amazon120.com>, <amazon125.com> and <amazon127.com>; the domain name <amaz0n14.com> has redirected to <amazon43.com>, <amazon45.com>, <amazon46.com>, <amazon54.com>, <amazon57.com>, and <amazon84.com>; the nominal registrants for <amazon14.com> and <amazon59.com> have the same phone number; and the Domain Names all have the same structure, namely, combining Complainant’s AMAZON trademark or the lookalike AMAZ0N with a two- or three-digit number and .com. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the above circumstances demonstrate sufficient commonality as between the Domain Names to satisfy the Panel that they are commonly owned or controlled by a single person who is using multiple aliases. Henceforth this decision will refer to meng li / chen xiansheng / chenxiansheng / Manlidy GNN / luoli / luo li as “Respondent”. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS As noted, the Gname.Com Pte. Ltd. registration agreement is in English and Chinese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the language of the proceeding in relation to eleven of the Domain Names, all registered with Gname.Com Pte. Ltd. in the name meng li, shall be Chinese unless otherwise determined by the Panel, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding. Complainant requests that the proceeding be conducted in English, noting that although the registration agreements for eleven of the Domain Names are in English and Chinese, the resolving websites are entirely in English; the Domain Names comprise English words and English gTLDs; and Respondent is using the Domain Names to target a US company. In the absence of any Response, these circumstances satisfy the Panel that Respondent is likely to be proficient in English and that there would be no undue prejudice to Respondent if English were the language of the proceeding. Further, pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the English and Chinese language Written Notice of the Complaint and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant, Amazon Technologies, Inc., is a retailer that offers a wide variety of products and services internationally. Complainant has rights in the AMAZON mark based upon registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Complainant also has rights in its “A” logo mark, registered with the USPTO. Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent has not used the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; Respondent is not making a noncommercial fair use of the Domain Names; and Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names. Instead, Respondent uses the Domain Names to pass itself off as Complainant and attempts to phish for Internet users’ account usernames and passwords. Respondent registered the Domain Names in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the AMAZON mark. Respondent participates in a pattern of bad faith domain name registration. Respondent uses the Domain Names in bad faith to pass itself off as Complainant or as being affiliated with Complainant. In addition, Respondent has attempted to commercially benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark. Furthermore, Respondent uses the Domain Names to facilitate phishing. Respondent has also engaged in the practice of typosquatting. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. C. Additional Submissions Respondent’s informal communication to the Forum was as follows: “Hello Dear Coordinator Our company has now completely revoked the use of relevant domain names.” In response, on August 29, 2022, Complainant filed a Declaration from its attorney that Respondent had not revoked use, since the domain names <amazon14.com> and <amazon59.com> still resolved to the same content shown in the complaint. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. DISCUSSION 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 formal 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”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has shown that it has rights in the AMAZON mark based upon registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,078,496, registered July 15, 1997). The Panel finds each of the Domain Names to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Thirteen of the Domain Names contain the AMAZON mark in its entirety, merely adding two or three numbers, which are insufficient to distinguish the Domain Names from the mark. The <amaz0n14.com> domain name incorporates a misspelling of the AMAZON mark, merely replacing the letter “o” with the number “0”. In each case the inconsequential gTLD “.com” may be ignored. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Names for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Names or names corresponding to the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the Domain Names, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Domain Names were registered as follows, in each case many years after Complainant has shown that its AMAZON mark had become one of the most famous marks in the world: <amazon63.com> on April 9, 2022; <amazon14.com> on June 15, 2022; <amazon59.com> on June 21, 2022; <amazon125.com>, <amazon120.com> and <amazon127.com> on July 30, 2022; <amazon84.com>, <amazon57.com>, <amazon54.com>, <amazon46.com>, <amazon45.com> and <amazon43.com> on August 1, 2022; <amazon67.com> and <amaz0n14.com> on August 2, 2022. Complainant has shown that all the Domain Names except <amazon63.com> resolve or have resolved to a landing page displaying Complainant’s USPTO registered “A” logo mark (Reg. No. 3,904,646, registered January 11, 2011) and a login within a phone silhouette; and the landing page for <amazon63.com> is an “E-COMMERCE” login screen within a phone silhouette similar to the phone silhouettes displayed at the remaining domain names. These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s famous AMAZON mark when Respondent registered the Domain Names and that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith for the purpose of obtaining sensitive information by attempting to impersonate Complainant. Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <amaz0n14.com>, <amazon14.com>, <amazon43.com>, <amazon45.com>, <amazon46.com>, <amazon54.com>, <amazon57.com>, <amazon59.com>, <amazon63.com>, <amazon67.com>, <amazon84.com>, <amazon120.com>, <amazon125.com> and <amazon127.com> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: September 29, 2022 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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