Leidos, Inc. v. Shi Lei
Claim Number: FA2112001976474
Complainant is Leidos, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kandis M. Koustenis of Bean, Kinney & Korman P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Shi Lei (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue is <leidosadedbenefits.com>, <leidosaddedbenifits.com>, <leidosaddedbenfits.com>, <leidosaddedbenefit.com>, <leidosaddebenefits.com>, and <leidoaddedbenefits.com>, (‘the Domain Names’) registered with DNSPod, Inc..
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 December 8, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 9, 2021.
On December 10, 2021, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <leidosadedbenefits.com>, <leidosaddedbenifits.com>, <leidosaddedbenfits.com>, <leidosaddedbenefit.com>, <leidosaddebenefits.com>, and <leidoaddedbenefits.com> Domain Names are registered with DNSPod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. DNSPod, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNSPod, 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 December 16, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 5, 2022 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@leidosadedbenefits.com, postmaster@leidosaddedbenifits.com, postmaster@leidosaddedbenfits.com, postmaster@leidosaddedbenefit.com, postmaster@leidosaddebenefits.com, postmaster@leidoaddedbenefits.com. Also on December 16, 2021, 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 January 11, 2022 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language. After considering the circumstance of the present case, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.
A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
Complainant is the owner of the mark LEIDOS registered in the USA for software with first use recorded as 2013. It owns leidos.com. It has a website with the domain Leidosaddedbenefits.com used for benefits for its employees.
The Domain Names registered in 2021 are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LEIDOS mark containing it in its entirety or a misspelling of it without an ‘s’ together with the words ‘added’ and/or ‘benefits’ and/or misspellings of either of those words and the gTLD “.com” none of which distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant’s mark.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s mark. The Domain Names have been used for web sites similar to each other bearing commercial pay per click links and there has therefore been no bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial fair use. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. The use is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith diverting Internet users for commercial gain.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is the owner of the mark LEIDOS registered in the USA for software with first use recorded as 2013. It owns leidos.com. It has a website with the domain Leidosaddedbenefits.com used for an employee benefits portal.
The Domain Names registered in 2021 have been used for commercial pay per click links.
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”).
<leidoaddedbenefits.com> consists of a misspelled version of the Complainant's LEIDOS mark (which is registered in USA for software with first use recorded as 2013) the dictionary words ‘added’ and ‘benefits’ and the gTLD “.com”. The Panel agrees that misspellings such as the omission of a letter from a trade mark does not distinguish this domain name from the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Twitch Interactive Inc. v. Zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015).
The rest of the Domain Names consist of the Complainant’s LEIDOS mark and the dictionary words ‘added’ and/or ‘benefit(s)’ and/or misspellings of either of those dictionary words and the gTLD “.com”.
The addition of generic words does not serve to distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant’s LEIDOS mark. See Abbott Laboratories v. Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec. 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of generic terms do not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant’s mark under Policy 4(a)(i).). Not do misspellings of generic words.
The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to the LEIDOS mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of 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 Names. 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). The use of the Domain Names is commercial and so is not legitimate noncommercial fair use.
It is clear from the evidence that the Respondent has used the pages attached to the Domain Names to link to commercial pay per link links offering services not connected with the Complainant. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. See Ferring B.V. v. Shanshan Huang / Melissa Domain Name Services, FA1505001620342 (Forum July 1, 2015) (“Placing unrelated third party links for the benefit of a respondent indicates a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services, and a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), respectively.”).
The Domain Names are also examples of typosquatted domain names. Typosquatting, the practice of registering a domain name containing typing errors can indicate a lack of rights and legitimate interests in a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA1503001610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) (Users might mistakenly reach Respondent’s resolving website by misspellings. Taking advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v. Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype and be taken to the Respondent’s site is registration and use in bad faith).
Respondent is using the Domain Names to point to pay per click links to make profit from promoting services not associated with the Complainant in a disruptive and confusing manner. Use for pay per click links indicates bad faith being disruptive of the Complainant’s business and diverting customers for commercial gain. See Plain Green, LLC v. wenqiang tang, FA1505001621656 (Forum July 1, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to feature generic third-party hyperlinks constituted bad faith).
Additionally the use of the generic words ‘added’ and/or ‘benefits’ and/or misspelling of those generic words with the Complainant’s mark mirroring the Complainant’s portal for its employees at Leidosaddedbenefits.com shows the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business at the time of registration of the Domain Names.
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <leidosadedbenefits.com>, <leidosaddedbenifits.com>, <leidosaddedbenfits.com>, <leidosaddedbenefit.com>, <leidosaddebenefits.com>, and <leidoaddedbenefits.com> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page