Amazonelitepublishers.com, Amzpublishingassist.com, Kindledirectpublications.com

The timeline behind amazonelitepublishers.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Ali Asghar / Huzefa Ejaz / Ahsan Ghaffar Claim Number: FA2412002129353 PARTIES Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Ali Asghar / Huzefa Ejaz / Ahsan Ghaffar ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <amazonelitepublishers.com>, <amzpublishingassist.com> and <kindledirectpublications.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. 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. Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 12, 2024; Forum received payment on December 12, 2024. On December 13, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <amazonelitepublishers.com>, <amzpublishingassist.com> and <kindledirectpublications.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 December 13, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of January 2, 2025 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@amazonelitepublishers.com, postmaster@amzpublishingassist.com, postmaster@kindledirectpublications.com. Also on December 13, 2024, 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 formal Response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On December 3, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of a Response. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUES: Multiple Respondents and Domain Names The Complaint names three persons as Respondents and relates to three domain names. 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." Complainant alleges that all three domain names are operated by the same person or entity using different aliases. For convenience of reference, each domain name is assigned a number, as follows: 1. <amazonelitepublishers.com>, 2. <amzpublishingassist.com>, and 3. <kindledirectpublications.com>. The WHOIS information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists Ahsan Ghaffar as the registrant of domain name 1, Huzefa Ejaz as the registrant of domain name 2, and Ali Ashgar as the registrant of domain name 3. All three domain names have the same registrar, domain names 1 and 2 have the same nameserver, and domain names 1 and 3 were registered within three weeks of each other (WHOIS printouts included in Complaint Exhibit A). The contact emails for all registrants are with gmail. Id. The websites resolving from all three domain names, as shown in Complaint Exhibits L, M and N, advertise and purport to offer products and services offered by Complainant and use Complainant's marks and logos in the same manner (screenshots of Complainant's websites at <amazonpublishing.amazon.com>, <amazon.com/amazon.com-kindle-ereader-family> and <kdp.amazon.com/en_us/>). All three websites are very similar to each other in layout and general appearance and much of the textual material and graphics on all three websites is identical. On this evidence, the Panel finds that all three domain names are registered to the same person or entity or are under common control and will proceed as to all four of them. Caterpillar v. Arendt, FA1805001789701 (Forum July 2, 2018), ("The Panel finds that the domain names are under common control because the three domain names are constructed in the same manner, were registered on the same date with the same registrar, have been used in the same way, and use Cloudfare servers. Also, the registrant used the same privacy service for all three domain names. These elements are sufficient to find that the domain names were registered by the same domain name holder."). References in this Decision to Respondent, even though in the singular, refer to the registrant of all three domain names. Consent to Transfer Shortly after serving the Notice of the Complaint upon Respondent, Forum received an email message from the Respondent reading as follows: Firstly, we would like to apologize for this inconvenience as we were not aware of this policy. Additionally, we would like to inform you that this domain was reserved on a request of one our friend who created this website but it was never operational and we have nothing to do with this so if you would like to have the ownership of the domain, we are ready to proceed with that and also request you to please withdraw this case. Now we got to know the policy and we will never do such thing which is against any policy. Please let us know the further necessary action in order to transfer and cancel this domain from our account. Thank You, Huzefa While not meeting the technical requirements for a formal Response provided by Rule 5(c), the Respondent's message appears to be authentic and indicates a willingness for the domain name to be transferred to Complainant. This would normally prompt the Panel to dispense with an analysis of the three required elements of Complainant's case and simply order a transfer based upon the Respondent's consent, but the circumstances of this case warrant another approach. The domain names resolve to websites that, as demonstrated by screenshots included in Complaint Exhibits L, M and N and more fully described below, intentionally and blatantly pass off as and impersonate Complainant. Under these circumstances Respondent's consent to the transfer of the domain name appears to be a ploy to avoid a finding of bad faith registration and use. The Panel elects to perform a full UDRP analysis of the facts presented by Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a leading retailer offering a wide variety of products and services, including books, Kindle electronic reading devices and the Kindle Direct Publishing service, which allows authors to self-publish their works. It has rights in the AMAZON, AMZ and KINDLE marks based upon its registration of those marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and in other countries. Respondent's domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's marks in that each incorporates an entire mark, merely adding various descriptive terms and a generic top-level domain (gTLD). Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. It is not commonly known by the domain names, it is not affiliated with Complainant and Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark, and it is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because it is using them to pass off as Complainant and advertise Complainant's products and services for sale. Respondent registered and uses the domain names in bad faith. It had actual knowledge of Complainant's marks when it registered the domain names, it is using them to pass off as Complainant and advertise Complainant's products and services for sale, disrupting Complainant's business and attempting to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name: (1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (2) the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. 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 WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0), at ¶ 4.3 states, "In cases involving wholly unsupported and conclusory allegations advanced by the complainant, . . . panels may find that—despite a respondent's default—a complainant has failed to prove its case." The WIPO Overview is not a definitive statement of applicable law which governs any particular issue, but it does express a consensus among a significant number of UDRP panelists as to how particular issues typically are and should be resolved. This Panelist accepts that consensus on this and other issues addressed later in this Decision. The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding: Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The AMAZON mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No. 2,078,496) on July 15, 1997 (USPTO registration certificate included in Complaint Exhibit H). The AMZ mark was registered to Complainant with the Trade Marks Registry of the United Kingdom (Reg. No. UK00003731802) on March 18, 2022 (UK Trade Marks registration certificate included in Complaint Exhibit J). The KINDLE mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (4,289,293) on February 12, 2013 (USPTO registration certificate included in Complaint Exhibit I). Complainant's registration of its marks with these agencies establishes its rights in those marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Google LLC v. CHANGKYUM KIM, FA 2009455 (Forum Oct. 5, 2022) ("Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is considered a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Respondent's <amazonelitepublishers.com>, <amzpublishingassist.com> and <kindledirectpublications.com>, domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. Each of them fully incorporates one of the marks, merely adding one or more descriptive generic terms and a gTLD. These changes do not distinguish the domain names from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."), 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Edwin Ng / Vipz Kit, FA61459 (Forum October 12, 2023) ("[the domain names] incorporate the mark its entirety, merely omitting the hyphen and adding generic or descriptive terms . . . and the gTLD"). The WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 1.7, states that the test for confusing similarity "typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name." Notwithstanding the changes described above, Complainant's mark is clearly recognizable within the domain names. Further, the addition of a descriptive term that relates to a complainant can actually enhance confusion. That is the case with the domain names involved here. Domain name 1 adds the terms "publishers," which is related to Complainant's book sales operations. Domain name 2 adds the terms "publishing assist," which describes another of Complainant's business enterprises. Adding these terms to Complainant's mark in these domain names relates directly to Complainant's business and enhances the confusing similarity, and Domain name 3 mimics exactly the name of Complainant's Kindle Direct Publishing Enterprise. PADI Americas, Inc. v. MPM Administration, FA 1783415 (Forum May 22, 2018) (finding the <padivacations.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant's PADI mark: "the inclusion of the suggestive term 'vacations' in the at-issue domain name only adds to any confusion between the domain name and Complainant's trademark since the term suggests Complainant's travel related services."). For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the AMAZON, AMZ and KINDLE marks, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests If a complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden of production shifts to respondent to come forward with evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in it. Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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"). If a respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant's prima facie evidence will be sufficient to establish that respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent does come forward with such evidence, the Panel must assess the evidence in its entirety. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, at ¶ 2.1. Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names because (i) it is not commonly known by the domain names, (ii) it is not affiliated with Complainant and Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark, and (iii) it is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because it is using them to pass off as Complainant and advertise Complainant's products and services for sale. These allegations are addressed as follows: The WHOIS information provided to Forum by the registrar lists the persons named as Respondents as the registrants of the domain names. None of these names bears any resemblance to the domain names. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the Domain Name or respondent's use of the same), 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 Panel is satisfied that Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant states that Respondent is not affiliated with it and that it has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark. In the absence of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant's mark in a domain name or that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the respondent may be presumed to lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register Domain Name featuring the complainant's mark and failed to submit evidence that it is commonly known by the domain name), Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) ("Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the 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 the at-issue domain name."). Complaint Exhibits L, M and N contain screenshots of the websites resolving from the domain names. Domain name 1 resolves to a website purportedly operated by "Amazon Elite Publishers" which purports to offer assistance for persons wanting to author and publish books or articles. It features the distinctive black and orange colors used by Complainant on its websites and purports to be Complainant or an authorized affiliate. It does not copy or mimic the appearance or content of any of Complainant's websites depicted on Complaint Exhibits B, D, E and F but by using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet traffic and Complainant's AMAZON mark, and by offering the same type of services offered by Complainant, it is passing off as Complainant or an authorized affiliate. The websites resolving from domain names 2 and 3 likewise display Complainant's marks, feature the distinctive black and orange colors used by Complainant on its websites, purport to be Complainant or an authorized affiliate, and offer the same types of writer-assist services. The domain name 2 website is purportedly operated by "Amazon Publishing Assist" and contains much of the textual and graphic material appearing on the domain name 1 website. The domain name 3 website is purportedly operated by "Kindle Direct Publications," but it advertises the same writer-assist services, with many of the same textual and graphic components as Respondent's other two websites. Neither of these two websites copies or mimics the appearance or content of any of Complainant's websites depicted on Complaint Exhibits B, D, E and F but by using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet traffic and Complainant's AMAZON and KINDLE marks, and by offering the same type of services offered by Complainant, it is passing off as Complainant or an authorized affiliate. Passing off as a complainant or authorized representative of a complainant and offering to sell a complainant's products does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Netflix, Inc. v. Irpan Panjul / 3corp.inc, FA 1741976 (Forum Aug. 22, 2017) ("The usage of Complainant's NETFLIX mark which has a significant reputation in relation to audio visual services for unauthorised audio visual material is not fair as the site does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with Complainant and this amounts to passing off . . . As such the Panelist finds that Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name."), Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). On the evidence presented, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent's web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent 's web site or location. The evidence of Respondent's conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis also supports a finding of bad faith registration and use, based upon the foregoing grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, by passing off as Complainant and offering to sell products advertised as those of Complainant, Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its websites. The evidence does not disclose whether Respondent is actually selling the products advertised on its websites or fraudulently representing that it does, collecting money from the customer and then not delivering the products or services. Regardless of which scenario is present here, Respondent's conduct fits squarely within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and is manifest evidence of bad faith registration and use. 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)."). As discussed above, Respondent is using the domain names to pass off as Complainant. Policy ¶ 4(b) recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. Worldcom Exchange, Inc. v. Wei.com, Inc., WIPO Case No. D-2004-0955 (January 5, 2005). The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passing off as a complainant, in and of itself, is evidence of bad faith. Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 27, 2017) (finding bad faith 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."). Complainant alleges that Respondent's conduct also falls within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) reads as follows: "you [the respondent] have registered the domain name primarily for the purposes of disrupting the business of a competitor" (emphasis supplied). By using the domain names to divert internet traffic intended for Complainant to its own sites, Respondent is clearly disrupting the business of Complainant. And, by purportedly offering services similar to those of Complainant, Respondent is also competing with Complainant. There is, however, another aspect of the concept of competition to be considered. In order for a respondent's conduct to fall within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), the competition must exist before the domain name is registered. Otherwise, the respondent's conduct would not fall within the language of ¶ 4(b)(iii), paraphrased as "you registered the domain name primarily to disrupt the business of a competitor." The competition must exist before the registration. In this case there is no evidence that Respondent was competing with Complainant prior to its registration of the domain names, and it appears that any actual competition between them arose only after Respondent registered and began using them. Even then, it is questionable whether disrupting the Complainant's business was Respondent's primary purpose in registering the domain names. On the contrary, the evidence strongly suggests that Respondent's primary motive was not so much to harass or annoy an existing commercial adversary as it was to trade upon Complainant's goodwill and reputation and profit commercially by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its site, which is properly addressed under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent's conduct does not fall within the circumstances stated in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). That said, using a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet traffic to a web site which passes off as and disrupts the business of a complainant is still bad faith. As discussed above, the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and using a confusingly similar domain name to disrupt the business of a complainant by passing off as and competing with that complainant is sufficient evidence of bad faith to meet the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent knew or should have known the disruptive impact his conduct would have upon Complainant's business. Respondent intentionally went forward with his plans in spite of that, and this demonstrates bad faith independently of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc. v. wei zhang / Magdalena Jennifer / Mu Yan / Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA1911001873163 (Forum January 3, 2020). Finally, it is evident that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its marks when it registered the domain names in January and August of 2024 (WHOIS printouts submitted as Complaint Exhibit A show creation dates). Complainant began using its AMAZON mark at least as early as the first use date of April 1995 shown on the USPTO registration certificate included in Complaint Exhibit H. More importantly, Respondent had to have had actual knowledge of Complainant in order to advertise Complainant's products using Complainant's marks. There is no question that Respondent knew of Complainant and its marks when it registered the domain names. Given the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), acquiring a confusingly similar domain name with actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in its mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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). For the reasons above set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <amazonelitepublishers.com>, <amzpublishingassist.com> and <kindledirectpublications.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist January 6, 2024 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.