Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Geetha Rao / Triple Ring Technologies
Claim Number: FA1109001407542
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Lynne M. J. Boisineau of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Geetha Rao / Triple Ring Technologies (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <siliconvalleyskunkworks.com>, <siliconvalleyskunkworks.net>, and <siliconvalleyskunkworks.org>, registered with Tucows Inc.
The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Honorable Bruce E. Meyerson Esq. and G. Gervaise Davis III as Panelists; and Richard Hill as Presiding Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on September 15, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on September 20, 2011.
On September 15, 2011, Tucows Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <siliconvalleyskunkworks.com>, <siliconvalleyskunkworks.net>, and <siliconvalleyskunkworks.org> domain names are registered with Tucows Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Tucows Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows 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 September 22, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 12, 2011 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@siliconvalleyskunkworks.com, postmaster@siliconvalleyskunkworks.net, and postmaster@siliconvalleyskunkworks.org. Also on September 22, 2011, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 21, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Bruce E. Meyerson Esq. and G. Gervaise Davis III as Panelists; and Richard Hill as Presiding Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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.
A. Complainant
Complainant alleges that it owns multiple trademark applications and registrations for the term SKUNK WORKS for goods and services relating to manufacturing, product design, research, engineering technical consulting, and advisory services with respect to designing, building, equipping, and testing commercial and military aircraft and related equipment, as well as a wide variety of goods and services related thereto. Complainant enjoys strong worldwide rights in, and recognition of, its mark, which has been used since 1943.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s valuable trademark, as well as to Complainant’s official domain, <skunkworks.com>.
Further, says Complainant, the incorporation of its famous mark into the disputed domain names appears to be an attempt to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website(s). The disputed domain names are likely to mislead and divert web users trying to locate legitimate information about Complainant’s goods and services and Complainant’s own website.
According to Complainant, its mark is not a generic or descriptive term in which the Respondent might have an interest. In fact, an Administrative Panel has found that Complainant’s SKUNK WORKS mark has “achieved fame…,” and held that “[g]iven the fame these Marks have attained, Complainant’s Marks are entitled to broad protection from injury to and misappropriation of its reputation that would otherwise result from cybersquatting.” Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Deborah Teramani, WIPO Case No. D2004-0836 (December 1, 2004).
Complainant alleges that the website(s) which resolve from the disputed domain names are not owned, affiliated with, or endorsed by Complainant. Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use, Complainant’s mark or any domain names incorporating the mark.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain names, nor is it using them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, Respondent is using them to provide links to Respondent’s registration service provider and hosting service. Given the well-known status of Complainant’s mark, there is no reason for Respondent to have registered the disputed domain names other than to trade off the reputation and goodwill of Complainant’s Mark. See Charles Jorden Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO, June 27, 2000) (finding that the domain name in question is “so obviously connected with the Complainant and its products that its very use by someone with no connection with Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith.”).
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply.
Complainant owns registered trademarks for the term SKUNK WORKS.
Respondent is not known by that term and has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s marks.
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to point to its website offering domain name registration and website hosting 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."
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
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.
Complainant presents evidence that it has several registrations for the SKUNK WORKS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Complainant claims that, in each of the disputed domain names, the Respondent fully incorporates Complainant’s mark and adds the geographic term “SiliconValley,” deletes a space, and adds a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Past panels have found that the addition of geographic terms is insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from the complainant’s mark. See Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. S G, D2001-0432 (WIPO May 22, 2001) (finding that the domain names <sunkistgrowers.org>, <sunkistgrowers.net> and <sunkistasia.com> are confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered SUNKIST mark and identical to the complainant’s common law SUNKIST GROWERS mark); see also Skype Ltd. & Gannett Co. v. Chan, D2004-0117 (WIPO Apr. 8, 2004) (“…it is well established that a domain name consisting of a well-known mark, combined with a geographically descriptive term or phrase, is confusingly similar to the mark.”). Additionally, previous panels have found the removal of a space in a mark and the addition of a gTLD are irrelevant for the purposes of a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain names. Therefore, the panel finds that the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”); see also U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (“Elimination of punctuation and the space between the words of Complainant’s mark, as well as the addition of a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent’s modifications to Complainant’s SKUNK WORKS mark in the disputed domain names fails to distinguish the domain names from the mark, thus the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKUNK WORKS mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
As Complainant points out, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names or the term SKUNK WORKS. Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s mark.
Complainant alleges, and provides evidence to prove, that the disputed domain names resolve to websites which are parked and which redirect Internet users to the website of Respondent’s registration and hosting service. In cases such as Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003), and Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003), previous panels have held that the use of a disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites which are unrelated to the Complainant are not uses within the scope of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii) as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Panels have found in the past that the registration and use of a disputed domain name which resolves to a website unrelated to the complainant often is evidence of the respondent’s intent to take commercial advantage of Internet users’ confusion. See Hancock Fabrics, Inc. v. Active Advantage, Inc., FA 204111 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2003) (“Respondent’s use of the <hancockfabric.com> domain name, a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s HANCOCK FABRICS mark, to redirect Internet traffic to a website that provides a selection of jokes demonstrates Respondent’ bad faith use of the disputed domain name because Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website, which evidences bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Qwest Commc’ns Int’l Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 187431 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 6, 2003) (“Respondent has attempted to commercially benefit from the misleading <qwestwirless.com> domain name by linking the domain name to adult oriented websites, gambling websites, and websites in competition with Complainant. Respondent’s attempt to commercially benefit from the misleading domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).
Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <siliconvalleyskunkworks.com>, <siliconvalleyskunkworks.net>, and <siliconvalleyskunkworks.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Presiding Panelist
Dated: November 1, 2011
Honorable Bruce E. Meyerson Esq., Panelist
G. Gervaise Davis III, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page