Amazonbooksstudio.com, Thekdpbookspublishing.com

The timeline behind amazonbooksstudio.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. Raheel Ansar / Nart Technologies Claim Number: FA2511002190821 PARTIES Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Raheel Ansar / Nart Technologies ("Respondent"), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <amazonbooksstudio.com> and <thekdpbookspublishing.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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 24, 2025; Forum received payment on November 24, 2025. On November 25, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <amazonbooksstudio.com> and <thekdpbookspublishing.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 November 26, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 16, 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@amazonbooksstudio.com, postmaster@thekdpbookspublishing.com. Also on November 26, 2025, 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 December 17, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant i) Complainant, Amazon Technologies, Inc., is a leading global retailer offering a broad range of products and services, including Amazon Publishing, launched in 2009. Complainant's Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) service enables authors to self-publish both print and digital books, and since 2007, Kindle Direct Publishing has facilitated the launch of millions of successful self-publishing careers. Complainant holds trademark registrations for AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, and KDP in the United States and/or other jurisdictions. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks as they incorporate: (i) Complainant's AMAZON or KDP trademarks; (ii) descriptive or generic terms such as "books," "publishing," and/or "studio"; (iii) for one domain, the definite article "the"; and (iv) for both domains, the gTLD ".com," which is shared with the AMAZON.COM mark. ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its marks in connection with the disputed domain names. Respondent is not using the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but rather is misrepresenting itself as Complainant. iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent is creating a false impression that its domain names or associated services originate from, are approved by, or are otherwise affiliated with Complainant. Respondent has sought to derive commercial advantage unfairly and opportunistically from the goodwill associated with Complainant's marks, and such diversionary conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use. Respondent's use of Complainant's trademarks to promote competing publishing services offered by Respondent or third parties has the effect of diverting and potentially disrupting Complainant's business operations. Any disclaimers posted on the websites fail to cure Respondent's deliberate attempt to brand itself using Complainant's trademarks and to mislead the public. Moreover, Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights constitutes further evidence of bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain names <amazonbooksstudio.com> and <thekdpbookspublishing.com> were registered on July 3, 2025 and March 18, 2025 respectively. 2. Complainant has established registered trademark rights in AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, and KDP. Specifically, Complainant owns a registration for the AMAZON mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,078,496, registered July 15, 1997), and a registration for the AMAZON.COM mark with the same office (e.g., Reg. No. 2,167,345, registered June 23, 1998). Complainant also owns a registration for the KDP mark with the UKIPO (e.g., Reg. No. UK00004156441, registered April 25, 2025). 3. Complainant offers Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP), which enables authors to self-publish print and digital books and reach millions of readers worldwide on Amazon. Since 2007, KDP has facilitated the launch of millions of successful self-publishing careers. 4. Although Complainant's UKIPO registration for KDP issued on April 25, 2025, after the disputed domain name <thekdpbookspublishing.com> was registered on March 18, 2025, Complainant's extensive and longstanding use and promotion of KDP in the field of self-publishing, as outlined above, gave rise to common law rights and secondary meaning for purposes of the Policy well before the disputed domain name was registered. 5. The landing pages resolving to the disputed domain names promote purported publishing assistance for authors. Respondent refers to itself as "Amazon Books Studio" at <amazonbooksstudio.com> and "The KDP Books Publishing" at <thekdpbookspublishing.com>. Complainant's trademarks are displayed as Respondent's sole brand and identity, including in the copyright legends, absent any other indications of source. The masthead logos combine Complainant's trademarks with descriptive or generic terms. The masthead logo on <amazonbooksstudio.com> is derived from the Amazon logo, featuring the same colors, similar lowercase letters, and an imitation of the Smile logo. The masthead logo on <thekdpbookspublishing.com> features the same colors as the modernized Amazon logo. The overall landing page color schemes also emphasize black and orange. 6. Complainant's Amazon logo trademark is displayed without authorization at <amazonbooksstudio.com>, together with logos of competing e-book providers, including Apple's iBookstore, Google Play, and Kobo. 7. On the landing page for <amazonbooksstudio.com>, Respondent displays an "Amazon Best Selling Author 2021" graphic despite the fact that Respondent has received no such recognition from Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, and KDP. The Panel notes that Complainant owns a registration for the AMAZON mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,078,496, registered July 15, 1997), and a registration for the AMAZON.COM mark with the same office (e.g., Reg. No. 2,167,345, registered June 23, 1998). Complainant also owns a registration for the KDP mark with the UKIPO (e.g., Reg. No. UK00004156441, registered April 25, 2025). Registration of a mark with the USPTO or the UKIPO is generally sufficient to establish rights in a mark. As Complainant has provided evidence of valid trademark registrations, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain names, <amazonbooksstudio.com> and <thekdpbookspublishing.com>, are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks as they incorporate (i) Complainant's AMAZON or KDP trademarks; (ii) descriptive or generic terms such as "books," "publishing," and/or "studio"; (iii) for one domain, the definite article "the"; and (iv) for both domains, the gTLD ".com," which is shared with the AMAZON.COM mark. Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the mere addition of descriptive terms and a gTLD does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a mark to which it is otherwise confusingly similar. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Accordingly, the Panel concurs and finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's AMAZON, AMAZON.COM, and KDP marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark; and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS information lists "Raheel Ansar / Nart Technologies" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the marks. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant contends that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead is engaging in passing off. The Panel observes that the landing pages resolving to the disputed domain names purport to offer publishing assistance for authors. The masthead logos incorporate Complainant's AMAZON and/or KDP trademarks, combined with descriptive or generic terms. The masthead logos utilize black and orange colors, mimicking those found in Complainant's Amazon logos. The overall color schemes of the landing pages likewise emphasize black and orange. Complainant's trademarks are used as Respondent's sole brand and source identifiers, including in the copyright legends, absent any other source designation. The Panel further notes that Complainant's Amazon logo trademark is displayed without authorization at <amazonbooksstudio.com>, together with logos of competing e-book providers, including Apple's iBookstore, Google Play, and Kobo. On the landing page for <amazonbooksstudio.com>, Respondent displays an "Amazon Best Selling Author 2021" graphic despite the fact that Respondent has received no such recognition from Complainant. Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Respondent is impersonating Complainant and lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the foregoing. As Respondent has failed to submit a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent is creating a false impression that its domain names or services originate from, are approved by, or are otherwise affiliated with Complainant. Respondent has sought to derive commercial benefit unfairly and opportunistically from the goodwill associated with Complainant's marks, and this diversionary conduct demonstrates bad faith registration and use. Respondent's use of Complainant's trademarks to promote competing publishing services offered by Respondent or third parties also has the potential to divert and disrupt Complainant's business. The Panel observes that, under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), use of a disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and offer similar or competing services may constitute evidence of bad faith attraction for commercial gain. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) ("finding bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that passed off as the complainant and offered online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant's business"). The Panel finds, as previously analyzed in detail, that Respondent used the disputed domain names to resolve to websites that passed off as Complainant and offered online self-publishing services in direct competition with Complainant's business by displaying Complainant's trademarks. The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain names disrupts Complainant's business for commercial gain. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). In addition, Complainant contends that any disclaimers posted on the websites cannot cure Respondent's deliberate attempt to brand itself using Complainant's trademarks and to mislead the public. The Panel observes that the landing page for <amazonbooksstudio.com> includes a scrolling disclaimer which states, "amazon books studio is an independent entity, unaffiliated with, sponsored by, or associated with any other companies or brands with similar or identical names, including major publishing companies or corporations. All content, services, and products offered through our website are exclusively provided by amazon books studio and are not endorsed or approved by any other entities." The landing page for <thekdpbookspublishing.com> includes a fixed disclaimer in the footer which states, "The KDP Books Publishing is an independent publishing platform, committed to assisting self-reliant authors with ethical book publishing and marketing solutions. We operate in accordance with US Federal and State laws and are not affiliated with Amazon.com." The Panel is of the view that such disclaimers may, in certain cases, serve to avoid confusion among Internet users. However, where Respondent prominently displays Complainant's trademarks, logos, and a highly similar color scheme, thereby impersonating Complainant, while simultaneously featuring the marks and logos of Complainant's competitors, the mere inclusion of a scrolling disclaimer or a footer notice that is neither prominent nor readily noticeable to users cannot justify or cure Respondent's passing off. On the contrary, such conduct appears to be a disingenuous attempt by Respondent to evade a finding of bad faith, rather than a genuine effort to avoid user confusion. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, Section 3.7 ("where the overall circumstances of a case point to the respondent's bad faith, the mere existence of a disclaimer cannot cure such bad faith"). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent's posting of disclaimers does not cure the bad faith arising from its passing off. Complainant further claims that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in Complainant's marks at the time of registering the disputed domain names. To support this assertion, Complainant argues that Respondent displays Complainant's Amazon logo and references Complainant in its disclaimers. The Panel notes that Complainant is a leading retailer offering a wide range of products and services. Amazon.com is the 3rd most-viewed website in the United States and the 8th most-viewed website globally according to public statistics provided by SimilarWeb. Complainant has more than 29 million followers on Facebook and nearly 6 million followers on X. Complainant's Amazon Shopping app on Google Play has more than 500 million downloads. Since 2007, Complainant has helped launch millions of successful self-publishing careers. The Kindle Direct Publishing Select Global Fund, which provides independent authors and publishers with additional promotional features, has paid out more than $2.2 billion in royalties to participants. Complainant's Kindle Direct Publishing Facebook page has over 400,000 followers, and its Twitter/X account has more than 80,000 followers. In view of Complainant's extensive advertising, commercial success, and wide public recognition, the AMAZON and KDP trademarks had acquired significant goodwill prior to the registration of the disputed domain names. The Panel therefore infers, in light of the fame of Complainant's marks and the manner in which the disputed domain names are used, that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AMAZON and KDP marks at the time of registration, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <amazonbooksstudio.com> and <thekdpbookspublishing.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: December 17, 2025 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.