1. At least in the U.S., this is clearly fair use [1] [EDIT: for purposes of
copyright law], first because the use is "transformative," and second because it will have
zero impact on the market for authorized copies (or displays or performances) of (i) the original copyrighted work, namely the Amazon Web site; or (ii) licensed derivatives of the Amazon Web site. See the Supreme Court's decision in
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, the "Oh Pretty Woman" parody case in which rappers 2 Live Crew prevailed [2].
2. If Amazon were to sue Philippe Dubost in the U.S. for infringement, the judge likely would toss out the case under the Supreme Court's Twombly/Iqbal doctrine [3], assuming Dubost filed a motion to dismiss --- I can't imagine how Amazon could plead a plausible case that the infringement had affected its market, as would be required by Twombly/Iqbal.
3. In the unlikely event that Amazon did sue Philippe Dubost in the U.S. for infringement, if Dubost won, he might very well be able to recover reasonable attorneys' fees from Amazon [4].
4. The resume suggests that Philippe Dubost is in Paris, so Amazon could sue in France for infringement of the French copyright; I don't know what the outcome would be in that case.
5. If someone at Amazon did want to file suit for infringement, the marketing people should throw their bodies in front of the train, because Amazon would be widely mocked. If anything, the resume's mimicry of the Amazon style provides (incremental) validation of Amazon's status as a First World icon.
5A. [EDIT:] On the trademark side, Amazon might have a plausible case against Dubost for "dilution" of a famous trademark, namely the totality of the Amazon Web site's look and feel. [5]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_I....
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Iqbal#Rule_8_pleadi...
[4] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#505
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution