Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. and Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., United States of America (“United States), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.

Respondent is Hei Ze Shang Zi, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <amaz0n-aws.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 13, 2020. On November 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 13, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 20, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 10, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 20, 2020.

The Center appointed Scott R. Austin as the sole panelist in this matter on January 5, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant states in its Complaint and provides evidence in the respective annexes sufficient to support that Complainant is comprised jointly of Amazon Technologies, Inc., and Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., subsidiaries operated under the control of Amazon.com, Inc., with its principal corporate offices located in Seattle, Washington, United States. Amazon.com, Inc. has been recognized as a world leader providing services in the fields of e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence under its AMAZON trademark (the “AMAZON Mark”). Complainant’s AMAZON Mark is currently one of the world’s most famous trademarks, ranked 2nd in Interbrand’s Best Global Brands report for 2020, led only by APPLE. Complainant provides goods and services to consumers throughout the world, employing some 750,000 individuals and reporting total 2019 revenue of over USD 280 billion.

Amazon Web Services (“AWS”), another subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc., provides one of the world’s most comprehensive and broadly adopted cloud platforms, offering over 175 services to millions of customers from data centers globally under the trademark AWS (the “AWS Mark”).

Complainant, its affiliated subsidiaries and associated companies have secured ownership of numerous trademark registrations for the AMAZON Mark and the AWS Mark in jurisdictions throughout the world, including but not limited to the following:

United States Trademark Registration No. 2078496, AMAZON, registered on July 15, 1997;

European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 002019412, AMAZON, registered on October 29, 1998;

International Registration No. 751641, AMAZON, registered on September 15, 2000;

United States Trademark Registration No. 5676725, AWS, registered on February 12, 2019; and

European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 006021547, AWS, registered on June 17, 2010.

Since it was founded in 1994 as one of the first major companies to sell goods over the Internet, Complainant has continuously used the domain name <amazon.com>, from which it operates its main website at “www.amazon.com” (the “Amazon Website”). The Amazon Website is currently ranked as the 10th most-visited website in the world.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 22, 2020 and as of November 5, 2020 when Complainant requested its suspension, resolved to a parking page displaying Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) advertising for a range of goods and services, including reference to Complainant, as well as competitors of Complainant. As of the date of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name was no longer resolving to an active website but has been used to conduct fraudulent email activity to impersonate Complainant and obtain payments and information from Complainant’s customers through a phishing scheme.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, Complainant must demonstrate that all the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The standard of proof under the Policy is often expressed as the “balance of the probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Under this standard, an asserting party needs to establish that it is more likely than not that the claimed fact is true. See, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.2.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainant has demonstrated its rights because it has shown that it is the holder of multiple valid and subsisting trademark registrations for both the AMAZON Mark and the AWS Mark. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657.

Prior UDRP panels have held “the fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”. Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903.

Prior UDRP panels have also considered a domain name, which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. See, Comerica Bank v. Online Management / Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2014-1018 (letter “o” in mark COMERICA replaced with the numeral zero in the disputed domain name).

The disputed domain name incorporates both Complainant’s AMAZON Mark and AWS Mark and is essentially identical to each mark. As in the Comerica Bank decision, Respondent’s only change, replacing the letter “o” in the AMAZON Mark with the numeral zero (“0”) in the disputed domain name <amaz0n-aws.com>, confirms the fact that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AMAZON Mark., with the addition of a hyphen and Complainant’s registered AWS Mark in its entirety. Prior UDRP panels have found typographic differences, such as the inclusion or omission of hyphens and apostrophes are inadequate to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. See, e.g., L’Oreal v. Tracey Johnson, WIPO Case No. D2008-1721. Similarly, the addition of the Top-Level domain (“TLD”) “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. See, Research in Motion Limited v thamer Ahmed Alfarshooti, WIPO Case No. D2012-1146; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.

The Panel finds therefore, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar because it incorporates both Complainant’s registered AMAZON Mark and its AWS Mark in their entirety and each remains recognizable within the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the second element of the Policy, a complainant is first required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If a complainant makes that showing, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence of such rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, a complainant is generally, deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. See also, Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Respondent is in default and thus has not attempted to come forward to show any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under the Policy at paragraph 4(c).

Complainant has established, prima facie, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. First, Complainant asserts Respondent is not a licensee of or affiliated with Complainant, nor has Complainant granted any authorization for Respondent to make use of its AMAZON Mark or AWS Mark in a domain name or otherwise. Complainant also shows Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name because Respondent is listed in the WhoIs record as “Hei Ze Shang Zi”, which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name whatsoever. Complainant also states that Respondent has not applied for or registered any trademarks for “amazon”, “amaz0n”, “aws”, or any combination or variation thereof, as such terms are reflected in the disputed domain name.

It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that a complainant has not authorized the respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. See, Roust Trading Limited v. AMG LLC, WIPO Case No. D2007-1857.

Respondent’s initial use of the Domain Name to resolve to a parking page displaying PPC advertising, including links referencing Complainant as well as competitors of Complainant, does not represent a bona fide use of the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9.

Complainant has also provided evidence showing Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with fraudulent email activity to impersonate Complainant as part of a phishing scheme to extract payment and financial information from Complainant’s customers. Prior UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., phishing, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13. See also, Springer Nature Limited v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Collections Springer Nature, WIPO Case No. D2020-0955.

Furthermore, prior UDRP panels have held that domain names that are identical to a complainant’s trademark carry a high risk of implied affiliation, and that such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.5.1 .

In view of the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not submitted any argument or evidence to rebut Complainant’s prima facie case. The Panel determines, therefore, that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that Complainant has successfully met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Complainant’s famous AMAZON Mark is recognized and registered around the world, including the United States, where Respondent is located. The AMAZON Mark has been used to identify products and services provided to millions of consumers for over 20 years prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in September 2020. It is implausible, therefore, to believe that Respondent was not aware of the AMAZON Mark and the AWS Mark when it registered the confusingly similar disputed domain name incorporating both marks, as determined in section 6.A. above. Respondent is impersonating Complainant in an attempt to attract Internet users for its commercial gain in violation of Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). Prior UDRP panels have found bad faith registration and use on this basis alone. See Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Price-Less Inkjet Cartridge Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0878.

Further, as noted in section 6.B., under the circumstances of this case, where Respondent registered the disputed domain name to engage in per se illegitimate activity, to intentionally target Complainant’s AMAZON Mark and AWS Mark and capitalize on their fame, the Panel finds such factors sufficient for this Panel to find bad faith registration. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. See also Accenture Global Services Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc / Jerry Megan, WIPO Case No. D2018-1091.

Similarly, the Panel finds Respondent’s original use of the disputed domain name in connection with a parking page displaying PPC links, from which Respondent derived click-through revenue, signals a further attempt on the part of Respondent to take unauthorized commercial advantage of Complainant’s trademarks in bad faith. Such exploitation of trademarks to obtain click-through commissions from the diversion of Internet users has been considered by many prior UDRP panel decisions to be a common example of bad faith as referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Villeroy & Boch AG v. Mario Pingerna, WIPO Case No. D2007-1912 (“Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name with the intention to attract Internet users for commercial gain is established by the sponsored links and pop-up advertisements on its website.”)

Accordingly, considering all of the circumstances here, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <amaz0n-aws.com> be transferred to Complainant (Amazon Technologies, Inc.).

Scott R. Austin
Sole Panelist
Date: January 19, 2021