Awsdns-102.com, Awsdns-103.com

The timeline behind awsdns-102.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. Sebastian Lopez / Lucas Gonzales Claim Number: FA2607002233402 PARTIES Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Sebastian Lopez / Lucas Gonzales ("Respondent"), Argentina. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <awsdns-102.com> and <awsdns-103.com>, registered with Unstoppable Domains Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 17, 2026; Forum received payment on July 17, 2026. On July 20, 2026, Unstoppable Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <awsdns-102.com> and <awsdns-103.com> domain names are registered with Unstoppable Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Unstoppable Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Unstoppable Domains 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 July 23, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 12, 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@awsdns-102.com and postmaster@awsdns-103.com. Also on July 23, 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 August 13, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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." The Panel finds that the domain names are under common control as the addresses given in the WHOIS are nearly identical as is the structure of the domain names. Further, both domain names were registered with the same registrar on the same day. This is sufficient to find that the domain names were registered by the same domain name holder. See The Valspar Corporation v. Zhou Zhiliang / zhouzhiliang / Zhiliang Zhou / Eric Chow / Visspa Ltd., FA 133934 (Forum Sept. 28, 2010); see also BBY Solutions, Inc. v. White Apple / Dev Kumar, FA 1787251 (Forum June 20, 2018). Consequently, the Panel will rule on both contested domain names, and the two registrants are collectively referred to as "Respondent". PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it launched <amazon.com> in July 1995 and today is one of the world's leading retailers, offering a wide variety of goods and services. In 2006, Complainant's Amazon Web Services (AWS) division began offering IT infrastructure services to businesses in the form of web services, now commonly known as cloud computing, and today AWS is the world's most comprehensive and broadly adopted cloud. AWS has expanded its services to support virtually any cloud workload, and now has more than 240 fully featured services spanning compute, storage, databases, networking, analytics, machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), mobile, security, hybrid, media, and application development, deployment, and management tools. The AWS Cloud spans 123 Availability Zones within 39 geographic regions. Millions of customers, including the fastest-growing startups, largest enterprises, and leading government agencies, are using AWS to lower costs, become more agile, and innovate faster. The AWS Console app is available for iOS and Android and has more than a million downloads on Google Play. AWS customers Bayer, BMW Group, Bundesliga, Capital One, F1, Fox, Intuit, Mercedes-Benz, Merck, Meta, NBA, NFL, Novartis, Petco, PGA Tour, Philips, Pinterest, Siemens, Sony, Toyota, Volkswagen, Wing Stop, WNBA, and Yum! Brands. Based on extensive promotion, use, and commercial success, Complainant's AWS trademark has become well-known and famous. Since 2010, AWS has offered the Amazon Route 53 DNS Service which allows customers to route end users to their websites reliably with globally dispersed Domain Name System (DNS) servers and automatic scaling. Amazon Route 53 automatically creates a name server (NS) record and lists the four name servers that are authoritative for the hosted zone using the format <ns-#.awsdns-#.TLD>. Complainant's AWS trademark is registered in various countries around the world, with rights dating back to 2019. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its AWS trademark, because they incorporate the mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term "DNS" (which stands for "domain name system"), a hyphen, and the digits "102" or "103", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in its marks. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain names are not being used. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. The disputed domain names are not being used. Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its marks The WHOIS information is false. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the mark AWS dating back to at least 2019 and uses it to provide cloud services. The mark is well known. The disputed domain names were registered in 2025. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The disputed domain names are not being used. 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 3.1 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 The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's AWS mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term "DNS" (which stands for "domain name system"), a hyphen, and the digits "102" or "103", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). This is not sufficient to distinguish the domain names from the mark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.' These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel may look to the WHOIS information to determine whether Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information on record lists "Sebastian Lopez / Lucas Gonzales" as the registrant name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain names are not being used. Failure to make an active use of a domain name demonstrates that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) ("Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant's mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant's mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain names are not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1): "From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" page) would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panelists have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's taking active steps to conceal its identity or (iv) the use of false or inaccurate contact details (noted to be in breach of the respondent's registration agreement). Taking the above factors into consideration, panels assess the overall plausibility of any (claimed) good faith use to which the domain name may be put in light of the composition of the domain name in relation to the relevant mark, such that, the more arbitrary or distinctive a mark the less plausible a claimed non-infringing good faith use is likely to be, and vice versa." In the present case, Complainant's trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain names that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) ("Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy"); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant's well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int'l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) ("The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith."). There has been no response to the Complaint and Respondent used a privacy service, that is, it attempted to conceal its identity. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain names are not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). 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 <awsdns-102.com> and <awsdns-103.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: August 13, 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.