Lockheed Martin Corporation v. OFFICE ROLLS
Claim Number: FA1512001651015
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Lynne M. J. Boisineau of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, California, USA. Respondent is OFFICE ROLLS ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lockheedmartcorp.com>, registered with eNom, Inc.
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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 4, 2015; the Forum received payment on December 4, 2015.
On December 7, 2015, eNom, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <lockheedmartcorp.com> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 8, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 28, 2015 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@lockheedmartcorp.com. Also on December 8, 2015, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 December 30, 2015, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 and its predecessor in interest have used the LOCKHEED mark since 1926. The mark is registered in many countries, and Complainant also claims common-law rights in the mark. Complainant adopted and registered the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark in 1995. Complainant uses and licenses these marks and alleges that they have become famous through the efforts of Complainant and its licensees.
The disputed domain name <lockheedmartcorp.com> was registered through a privacy service on November 10, 2015. Complainant contends that this domain name is identical and confusingly similar to its LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED MARTIN marks. Complainant states that Respondent has not been licensed or permitted to use Complainant's marks, and is not commonly known by the domain name. Complainant states further that on November 10, 2015, it received notification from at least two of its vendors reporting that they had received suspicious orders from a person posing as an employee of Complainant, using an email address containing the disputed domain name. Complainant accuses Respondent of using the domain name in connection with a phishing scam or other fraudulent activity, and argues that there is no other reason for Respondent to have registered the domain name other than for such purposes. On these grounds Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
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(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.").
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark LOCKHEED in its entirety. It is comprised of Complainant's registered mark LOCKHEED MARTIN, omitting the space and the last two letters, and adding the generic term "CORP" and the ".com" top-level domain suffix. These modifications do not diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Mr Healrd Diviolrg, FA 1562892 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2014) (finding <lockheedmartincorporationusa.com> confusingly similar to LOCKHEED MARTIN); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Counter Balance Enterprises Ltd. / Counter Balance, FA 1405603 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2011) (finding <lockheedmarting.com> confusingly similar to LOCKHEED MARTIN). The Panel therefore considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark without authorization, and apparently its sole use has been in connection with a fraudulent scheme aimed at Complainant's vendors. See, e.g., Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Janina Deikuna, FA 1634141 (Forum Sept. 22, 2015) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests in similar circumstances).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent'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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent's registration of a domain name obviously intended to create confusion with Complainant, together with its use of that domain name in connection with a fraudulent scheme involving email messages attempting to defraud Complainant or its vendors by exploiting that confusion, is indicative of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv). See, e.g., Bloomberg Finance L.P., supra. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lockheedmartcorp.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: December 30, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page