Kdppublicationsprime.com

The timeline behind kdppublicationsprime.com

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.

DECISION Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Max crook Claim Number: FA2602002205271 PARTIES Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Max crook ("Respondent"), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <kdppublicationsprime.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Spaceship, 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. David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 13, 2026; Forum received payment on February 13, 2026. On February 13, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kdppublicationsprime.com> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 February 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 9, 2026, 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@kdppublicationsprime.com. Also on February 17, 2026, 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 March 10, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a leading online retailer and technology company. Complainant's services include Amazon Publishing, which publishes fiction, nonfiction, and children's books; the Kindle line of electronic reading devices; and the Kindle Direct Publishing ("KDP") service, which allows authors to self-publish print and digital books and reach millions of readers worldwide. Complainant also offers its well-known Prime membership service, which includes benefits relating to shopping, shipping, video, music, gaming, and reading, among others. As of 2021, there were over 200 million Prime members. Complainant owns trademark registrations for KDP and PRIME in the United States and other countries. Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name <kdppublicationsprime.com> is confusingly similar to its KDP and PRIME trademarks because it incorporates both marks in their entirety with only the addition of the descriptive term "publications" and the gTLD ".com." Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by KDP, PRIME, or any variation thereof, is not affiliated with Complainant, and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's marks. The landing page for the Disputed Domain Name promotes purported publishing assistance for authors, prominently displays Complainant's KDP and PRIME trademarks in its masthead logo, uses Complainant's distinctive orange and black color scheme, and displays Complainant's trademarks as Respondent's sole brand and identity with no other indications of source. Complainant contends this constitutes passing off and is not a fair, nominative, or otherwise legitimate use. The landing page also promotes Complainant's competitors, including Barnes & Noble and Kobo. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights, as evidenced by Respondent's use of Complainant's KDP and PRIME trademarks combined in the domain name, the use of Complainant's distinctive color scheme, and the website's references to Amazon Kindle publishing services. Complainant contends that Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name to create a false impression of affiliation with Complainant and to promote competing services constitutes bad faith under Policy Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following: Complainant owns the registered trademarks KDP and PRIME used in connection with its publishing and retail services. Complainant's earliest United States trademark registration for PRIME is Registration No. 5,218,535, registered on June 6, 2017. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <kdppublicationsprime.com> on February 2, 2026. The Registrar-supplied WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Max crook." There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by KDP, PRIME, or any similar name under Policy Paragraph 4(c)(ii). The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that promotes purported publishing assistance for authors. The website's banner logo prominently incorporates Complainant's KDP and PRIME trademarks, adding only the descriptive term "publications." The website employs Complainant's distinctive orange and black color scheme and displays Complainant's trademarks as the site's sole brand and identity, with no other indications of source other than Complainant's marks. The website also promotes competing services offered by other publishers. The Panel considers that this use is likely to confuse and mislead the public as to the source of, or Complainant's affiliation with, Respondent's website and services. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established rights in the KDP and PRIME trademarks through registration and extensive use in commerce. The Disputed Domain Name <kdppublicationsprime.com> incorporates Complainant's KDP and PRIME marks in their entirety, adding only the descriptive or generic term "publications" and the generic top-level domain ".com", which is merely an administrative requirement. The addition of a descriptive term that relates to Complainant's business and the addition of a gTLD are insufficient to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's marks. See Amazon Techs., Inc. v. Noor et al., FA 2195054 (Forum Jan. 14, 2026) (finding <kdppublishingprime.com> and <primepublishingpros.com> confusingly similar to KDP and/or PRIME); see also American Express Co. v. MustNeed.com, FA 0257901 (Forum June 7, 2004) ("mere addition of a generic or descriptive word to a registered mark does not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent's domain name pursuant to UDRP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)"). The Panel considers that the addition of the generic term "publications" serves only to compound the likelihood of confusion, as publishing is a major component of Complainant's business. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's KDP and PRIME trademarks 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 Name, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Max crook," and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's marks. The website at the Disputed Domain Name promotes purported publishing assistance for authors using a banner logo that prominently incorporates Complainant's KDP and PRIME trademarks as Respondent's sole brand and identity, employs Complainant's distinctive orange and black color scheme, and provides no other indications of source. The website also promotes Complainant's competitors. This constitutes passing off and is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Amazon Techs., Inc. v. Soomro, FA 2093579 (Forum May 20, 2024) (finding passing off and absence of rights or legitimate interests where respondent's landing pages displayed complainant's trademarks as sole brand and identity with no other indications of source). Respondent has not submitted a Response or provided any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on February 2, 2026, long after Complainant established rights in its KDP and PRIME trademarks. The Disputed Domain Name combines both of Complainant's marks, and the website at the Disputed Domain Name references Amazon Kindle publishing services and employs Complainant's distinctive color scheme. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights. See Amazon Techs., Inc. v. Souders, FA 1610740 (Forum April 21, 2015) ("actual knowledge is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)"). Furthermore, Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name and website branding to create a false impression that its website and services originate with, are approved by, or are otherwise associated with Complainant, while also promoting competing publishing services. This use is calculated to attract internet users to Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation, and potentially disrupts Complainant's business. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See Amazon Techs., Inc. v. Abraham Lincoln / Logozeal, FA 2095199 (Forum May 22, 2024) (finding bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where respondent used disputed domain name to offer competing publishing services using complainant's mark and logo). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name 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 <kdppublicationsprime.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: March 11, 2026 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.