Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Rong Cheng Shi Kun Yu Fu Shi You Xian Gong Si et al.
Claim Number: FA1505001619833




   Complainant: Lockheed Martin Corporation of Bethesda, MD, United States of America
Complainant Representative: McDermott Will & Emery LLP Lynne M. J. Boisineau of Irvine, CA, United States of America

   Respondent: Rong Cheng Shi Kun Yu Fu Shi You Xian Gong Si HOU GUANGHUI of rongchengshi, II, China


   Registries: Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.,Zodiac Leo Limited,XYZ.COM LLC
   Registrars: XinNet Technology Corporation,Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd,Xin Net Technology Corp.


   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 Examiner in this proceeding.
   David L. Kreider Esq,, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: May 18, 2015
   Commencement: May 22, 2015
   Response Date: June 12, 2015
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.


   Clear and convincing evidence.


   Findings of Fact: Complainant alleges that its F-35 Mark is famous for use in connection with one of the world’s most advanced fighter aircraft, and a variety of goods and services related thereto. Complainant is involved in licensing its Mark to others for clothing goods, toys, novelty items, and office and home goods. Through the licensing and sale of such products, the Mark has acquired fame and distinctiveness amongst general consumers, reaching well beyond Complainant’s government and defense customers.


URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant asserts that it is entitled to a presumption of ownership, validity, and the exclusive right to use its F-35 trademark (“Mark”) in connection with the goods and services named in its numerous registration certificates, including the registration record submitted in this matter. 15 U.S.C. §1057(b).

[URS] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant alleges that Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s Mark or any domain names incorporating the Mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the F-35.top, F-35.wang, or F-35.xyz domains (“Domain Names”). The Domain Names fully incorporate the Complainant’s well established trademark, an arbitrary term for which there is no reason to expect legitimate third party use. The Domain Names are linked to inactive websites, which state “[t]his webpage is not available.” The Respondent alleges that the Domain Names will, at an unspecified future time, be used for Respondent's on-line business selling clothing and fashion accessories, including T-shits and hats, having nothing to do with the Complainant's trade mark and that "F means fashion and 35 is Respondent's lucky number".

[URS] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Examiner finds that the Domain Names have been registered and used in bad faith for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business and to intentionally attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Domain Names by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Domain Names. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s continued use and registration of the Domain Names will cause significant disruption to Complainant’s business. The Respondent merely denies having any intention to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's Mark, but presents no plausible evidence to the contrary.


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:

  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. f-35.top
  2. f-35.wang
  3. f-35.xyz


David L. Kreider Esq,
Dated: June 12, 2015



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page