Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Ravindra Bala / sinetbiz.com
Claim Number: FA1909001861839
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Naresh Kilaru of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Ravindra Bala / sinetbiz.com (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <f16.store> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 12, 2019; the Forum received payment on September 12, 2019.
On September 13, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <f16.store> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 September 13, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 3, 2019 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@f16.store. Also on September 13, 2019, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 8. 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the mark F-16, registered, inter alia in the United States for jet aircraft and ancillary licensed goods and services with first use recorded as 1980. Due to its licensing activities the Complainant’s mark has become recognized by consumers worldwide.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark including it in its entirety and deleting only the hyphen and adding the gTLD .store which does not prevent such confusing similarity.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorized by the Complainant. The Respondent’s resolving web site merely offers the Domain Name for sale. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
It is bad faith under Policy 4(b)(i) due to the Domain Name being generally offered for sale, under Policy 4(b)(ii) due to a pattern of bad faith registration and use where the Respondent has been the subject of several adverse decisions under the UDRP on similar facts and under 4(a)(iii) due to passive holding,
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the mark F-16, registered, inter alia, in the United States for jet aircraft and ancillary licensed goods and services with first use recorded as 1980.
The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been generally offered for sale. The Respondent has been the subject of several adverse decisions under the UDRP.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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; 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 or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s F-16 trademark (registered in USA for, inter alia, jet fighter planes with first use recorded as 1980) with the hyphen removed and the gTLD “.store” added.
Removing a hyphen from a mark and merely adding a gTLD does not prevent confusing similarity between a Domain Name and a mark See Daniel Handler v. Masanori Toriimoto / PLAN-B Co.,Ltd, FA 1778986 (Forum May 7, 2018) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of a sign confusingly similar to its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The Domain Name has not been used except to make a general offer to sell it. Such a general offer to sell a disputed domain name can be evidence of a lack or rights or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name under Policy 4(a)(ii). See 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA 1725052 (Forum May 9, 2017) and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.
As such, the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
A general offer to sell a Domain Name containing the mark of a complainant for more than out-of-pocket costs can demonstrate bad faith registration under Policy 4(b)(i). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA1506001625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“A respondent’s general offer to sell a disputed domain name for an excess of out-of-pocket costs is evidence of bad faith under Policy 4(b)(i).”).
Further, it appears that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad-faith registration and has been the subject of at least six adverse UDRP proceedings. Evidence of a history of evidence of findings of bad faith in UDRP decisions may be sufficient to show a respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad-faith registration under Policy 4(b)(ii). See DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826.
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied ¶¶ 4(b)(i) and (ii) of the Policy and there is no need to consider any additional allegations of bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <f16.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: October 8, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page