Zoox, Inc. v curtis dennis

WIPO Case No. D2023-2552

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Zoox, Inc. v. curtis dennis

Case No. D2023-2552

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Zoox, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Lee & Hayes, PC,

United States.

The Respondent is curtis dennis, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <zoox.live> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 13, 2023.

On June 14, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 14, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (zoox.live) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 26, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 26, 2023.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 the Respondent of the the due date for Response was July 17, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,

the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 26, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on July 31, 2023. 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

The Complainant is an independent subsidiary of Amazon and makes autonomous vehicles designed for use in ride-hailing services. It owns the mark ZOOX which it has registered in a number of forms in various jurisdictions, including the European Union (Reg. No. 018263002, registered on December 10, 2020).

According to the WhoIs information, the disputed domain name was registered on May 11, 2023. The addresses to impersonate the Complainant in an attempt to steal personal information from job applicants.

Specifically, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent messages job applicants claiming to be “Zoox

Inc.” The Respondent also attaches a “pre-job briefing” application utilizing the Complainant’s logo. At the

end of the “interview process” the Respondent then asks the applicants to enter their personal information.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the

Complainant’s trademark; that the 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

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of 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 the Complainant has rights, (ii) the 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 Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on

Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The standing (or threshold)

test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the

complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Id. This element requires the Panel to consider

two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and second, whether the disputed

domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.

A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark
certificate belong to its respective owner. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde
Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the
ZOOX mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations.

page 3

The disputed domain name incorporates the ZOOX mark in its entirety. This is sufficient for showing that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a
prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production of demonstrating rights or
legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent (with the burden of proof always remaining with the
Complainant). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; AXA SA v. Huade Wang, WIPO Case
No. D2022-1289.

On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) use of the disputed domain name in the context of this purported fraud scheme cannot confer rights or legitimate interests, (2) the Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to register the disputed domain name, and (3) there is no evidence the Respondent is using the disputed domain name or a trademark corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. And nothing in the record otherwise tilts the

balance in the Respondent’s favor.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Noting the Complainant’s unrebutted declaration that the Respondent promptly began using the disputed

domain name to impersonate the Complainant (going so far as to use its logo in fraudulent email messages),
it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of the ZOOX mark when it registered the

disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, such a showing is sufficient to establish bad faith

registration of the disputed domain name. Bad faith use is likewise clear from the Respondent’s activities of

using the disputed domain name to send fraudulent email messages. For these reasons, the Panel finds

that the Complainant has successfully met this third UDRP element.

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 <zoox.live> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Evan D. Brown/

Evan D. Brown

Sole Panelist
Date: August 22, 2023