Lockheed Martin Corporation v. All Components Engineering & Sales
Claim Number: FA0912001296709
Complainant is Lockheed Martin
Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Susan Okin
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <lockheedmartinelectroniccomponents.com>, <lockheedelectroniccomponents.com>, and <lockheedcomponents.com>, registered with Domaindiscover. ("the Domain Names")
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne of Palmer Biggs Legal.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 1, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 2, 2009.
On December 8, 2009, Domaindiscover confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <lockheedmartinelectroniccomponents.com>, <lockheedelectroniccomponents.com>, and <lockheedcomponents.com> Domain Names are registered with Domaindiscover and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the Domain Names. Domaindiscover has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domaindiscover registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 17, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of January 6, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, and email@example.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 18, 2009.
Complainant submitted an Additional Submission on December 23, 2009, which was in compliance with Supplemental Rule 7.
On 29 December 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Dawn Osborne, Palmer Biggs as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
The Complainant's submissions can be summarised as follows:
1. The Complainant is the owner of
registered trade marks for LOCKHEED MARTIN and LOCKHEED in numerous
jurisdictions around the world including the
2. The Complainant or its predecessors have manufactured goods and provided services under the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark since 1920. The Complainant is no 54 on the Fortune 500 list of US Companies. The Complainant's aeronautics, electronics systems, information and technology services and space services are world famous.
3. The Complainant owns a large number of domain names containing LOCKHEED MARTIN including lockheedmartin.com.
4. A number of UDRP panels have recognised the Complainant's rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN marks.
5. LOCKHEED MARTIN is a well known mark and the Complainant owns the exclusive rights in this mark.
6. The Domain Names incorporate the Complainant's LOCKHEED MARTIN mark in its entirety and merely add generic words for goods that the Complainant produces and for which it is famous. Persons looking for the Complainant on the Internet are likely to be confused by the Domain Names.
7. The Respondent does not have rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark, nor is it licensed or authorised to use it or commonly known by the same. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
8. The Domain Names are currently being offered for sale by the Respondent who has asked for a “good price” and did not accept costs of registration as reimbursement. The Respondent also asked the Complainant to “give business” to it. The Respondent seeks monies and advantage in excess of the Respondent’s out of pocket costs for the Domain Names.
9. The Domain Names were registered decades after first use of the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark by the Complainant's predecessors. The Domain Names could not be registered in good faith due to the distinctive nature of the Complainant's mark.
10. The Domain Names are connected to quantumleapelectronics.com a commercial site selling electronic components which are not manufactured by the Complainant. The Respondent also owns boeingelectroniccomponents.com which points to the same site. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its web site and has a pattern of registering domain names containing famous marks belonging to others.
The Respondent's submissions can be summarised as follows:
1. If the Complainant had provided $1300 per domain name the matter would have been settled. The Respondent was expecting a cheque and documents from the Complainant about this.
2. It wants to make sure the Domain Names go back to the real Lockheed Martin company.
C. Additional Submissions
The Complainant's additional submissions can be summarised as follows:
1. Respondent does not deny that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's LOCKHEED MARTIN trade mark or that it does not have a legitimate interest in them but simply requests monetary payment.
2. Complainant never offered the Respondent anything more than the cost of registration for one of the e mails before it was discovered that the Respondent owned two other domain names containing the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark.
(1) The panelist finds that the Domain Names registered by the Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and
(3) The Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith as prescribed by the Policy.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) the 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.
The Complainant has demonstrated
that it owns registered trade marks and common law rights in the mark LOCKHEED
MARTIN which has been used by itself and its predecessors for electrical
components for approximately 90 years across the world including the
The panelist agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent does not have rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark, nor is it licensed or authorised to use it or commonly known by the same. The Respondent makes no submissions in this regard and merely explains that it was expecting $1300 per domain name. See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s willingness to sell a contested domain name for more than its out-of-pocket costs provided additional evidence that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name); see also George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (holding that where a respondent makes a “disproportionate” offer to sell its domain name registration to the complainant for more than its out-of-pocket registration costs, there is additional evidence that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
The Respondent itself states that is was expecting $1300 per domain name in its Response. The panelist agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent has asked for monies far exceeding its out of pocket expenses for the Domain Names. See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that the respondent registered and was using the <gwbakeries.mobi> domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where it offered it for sale for far more than its estimated out-of-pocket costs it incurred in initially registering the disputed domain name.)
Additionally, the Respondent has linked the Domain Names to a site selling electronic components which compete with those of the Complainant and which are manufactured by third parties. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with the complainant’s illustrates the respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name, evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant’s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent’s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
In the light of these findings it is not necessary for the panelist to decide if there is a pattern of bad faith registrations.
Accordingly the panelist finds that in accordance with the provisions of the Policy the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Names in 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 <lockheedmartinelectroniccomponents.com>, <lockheedelectroniccomponents.com>, and <lockheedcomponents.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne of
Palmer Biggs, Panelist
Dated: January 12, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum