Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Lockheed Martin / Lockheed Martin Technology
Claim Number: FA2201001980040
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Lockheed Martin / Lockheed Martin Technology (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lockheedmartinllc.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 12, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 12, 2022.
On January 13, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lockheedmartinllc.com> 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 January 13, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 2, 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@lockheedmartinllc.com. Also on January 13, 2022, 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 February 7, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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 made the following contentions.
Complainant is the world’s largest defense contractor and a global security and aerospace company. Complainant has rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,022,037, Registered Dec. 10, 1996). See Compl. Ex. 8. Respondent’s <lockheedmartinllc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “LLC” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <lockheedmartinllc.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s domain name resolves to a webpage that offers pay-per-click links to services unrelated to Complainant’s business.
Respondent registered and used the <lockheedmartinllc.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent’s domain name resolves to a webpage that displays pay-per-click links to services unrelated to Complainant’s business. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark due to the longstanding use and fame of the mark in commerce.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States company that is the world’s largest defense contractor and a global security and aerospace company.
2. Complainant has established its rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,022,037, Registered Dec. 10, 1996).
3. Respondent registered the <lockheedmartinllc.com> domain name on March 22, 2021.
4. Respondent has caused the domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers pay-per-click links to services unrelated to Complainant’s business.
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 first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant submits that it has rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark through its registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark per policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant’s registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Here, Complainant has provided this Panel with copies of it USPTO registrations for the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark (e.g. Reg. No. 2,022,037, Registered Dec. 10, 1996). See Compl. Ex. 8. Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark. Complainant argues that Respondent’s <lockheedmartinllc.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark. Registration of a domain name that contains a mark in its entirety and adds a generic word or phrase along with a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Here, Complainant argues that Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic term “LLC” along with the “.com” gTLD. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark and to use it in its domain name in its entirety, adding only the generic term “LLC”;
(b) Respondent registered the <lockheedmartinllc.com> domain name on March 22, 2021;
(c) Respondent has caused the domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers pay-per-click links to services unrelated to Complainant’s business;
(d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(e)Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <lockheedmartinllc.com> domain name because Respondent is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is has rights or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Where a respondent appears to be commonly known by a disputed domain name, the Panel may still find the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name if the respondent lacks authorization to use the complainant’s mark and the respondent fails to provide affirmative evidence in support of this identity. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as “Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund” in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies the registrant as “Lockheed Martin / Lockheed Martin Technology” but Respondent provides no affirmative evidence in support of this identity and no evidence in the record suggests Respondent is authorized to use the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(f) Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent’s domain name resolves to a webpage that offers pay-per-click links to services unrelated to Complainant’s business. Use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers pay-per-click links to services unrelated to a complainant’s business is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Syed Hussain / IBN7 Media Group, FA 1721384 (Forum Apr. 26, 2017) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to the complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with a screenshot of Respondent’s <lockheedmartinllc.com> domain name’s resolving webpage that shows links to services such as “Rocket Lawyer” and “Attorneys” which is unrelated to Complainant’s business. See Compl. Ex. 10. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent.
As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and has been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and used the <lockheedmartinllc.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent’s domain name resolves to a webpage that displays pay-per-click links to services unrelated to Complainant’s business. Use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers pay-per-click links that are unrelated to a complainant’s business may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant’s business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with a screenshot of Respondent’s <lockheedmartinllc.com> domain name’s resolving webpage that shows links to services such as “Rocket Lawyer” and “Attorneys” which are unrelated to Complainant’s business. See Compl. Ex. 10. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Secondly, Complainant argues that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark at the time of registering the <lockheedmartinllc.com> domain name and therefore registered the domain name in bad faith. The Panel will disregard arguments of bad faith based on constructive notice as prior UDRP decisions generally decline to find bad faith as a result of constructive knowledge. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”). However, the Panel will determine whether Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name as actual knowledge can adequately demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). As such, the Panel determines that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark, as the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark and Complainant’s name and brand are famous, which supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Thirdly, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name using the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using the domain name, Respondent registered and used it in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lockheedmartinllc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC,
Panelist
Dated: February 8, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page