Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Robin Mannall / White Horse Machinery
Claim Number: FA2004001891515
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, United States of America. Respondent is Robin Mannall / White Horse Machinery (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lockheedmartyn.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 9, 2020; the Forum received payment on April 9, 2020.
On April 9, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lockheedmartyn.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 April 10, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 30, 2020 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@lockheedmartyn.com. Also on April 10, 2020, 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 May 5, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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
Complainant states that it is the world’s largest defense contractor and a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 100,000 people worldwide. It is primarily engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. Complainant maintains over 590 facilities in all 50 states throughout the United States, as well as international business locations in 52 nations and territories. In 2017, Complainant’s sales exceeded $51 billion. Complainant has rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark based upon registration in the United States in 1996. The mark is famous.
Respondent alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark as it incorporates the entire LOCKHEED MARTIN mark, merely replacing the letter “i” with the letter “y” and adding the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to its own website in order to offer products unrelated to Complainant’s business.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users to its unrelated website for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent engages in typosquatting by substituting the letter “i” for the letter “y” in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge or constructive notice of Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in these proceedings.
Complainant owns the mark LOCKHEED MARTIN and uses it to market advanced technology systems, products and services, primarily in the defense and aerospace sectors. The mark is famous.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at least 1996.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2018.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to sell unrelated products and services.
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”).
The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety, merely replacing the letter “i” with the letter “y” and adding the “.com” gTLD. Misspelling of a complainant’s mark, and adding a gTLD may not sufficiently mitigate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. David, FA 104980 (Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (“The misspelling of a famous mark does not diminish the confusingly similar nature between the marks and the disputed domain names.”); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). Therefore the Panel finds that the <lockheedmartyn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its LOCKHEED MARTIN mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 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.). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Robin Mannall / White Horse Machinery.” The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect users to a website in order to sell products unrelated to Complainant. Specifically, Complainant presents evidence showing that the disputed domain name redirects to the webpage of a purported management and holdings company claiming to be focused on delivering technology, services, and products with an emphasis on capital investment in companies with world-wide potential. Using a confusingly similar domain to display unrelated content can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair us under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Coupang Corporation v. mengjianhua, FA2002001883964 (Forum Mar. 21, 2020) (“A respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to an unrelated webpage may not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent 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 name redirects users to a website offering unrelated products and services. Using a confusingly similar domain name to commercially benefit via, unrelated products can evince bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Montu Chadha / Applications on Networks Inc., FA1910001864855 (Forum Nov. 12, 2019) (“Use of a confusingly similar domain name for commercial purposes unrelated to a complainant’s business can indicate bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also LinkedIn Corporation v. Kharim Khan, FA1210001467581 (Forum Dec. 6, 2012) (“Previous panels have held that a respondent registers and uses a disputed domain name in bad faith when they intend to profit by diverting confused Internet users who were searching for goods/services provided by the complainant. . . . Therefore, the Panel agrees and finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name with the purpose of confusing Internet users and attracting personal commercial gain as prohibited under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Moreover, Respondent engages in typosquatting, because the disputed domain name merely replaces the letter “i” with a “y” in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark. Misspelling of a complainant’s mark in order to commercially benefit from a confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and the mark can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1503001610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (“Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lockheedmartyn.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: May 5, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page