Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Lock Heed Martins / Lock Heed Martins- Transit
Claim Number: FA1512001651715
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Lynne M. J. Boisineau of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Lock Heed Martins / Lock Heed Martins- Transit (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lockheedmartin-transit.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 9, 2015; the Forum received payment on December 9, 2015.
On December 10, 2015, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lockheedmartin-transit.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 December 11, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 31, 2015 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@lockheedmartin-transit.com. Also on December 11, 2015, 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 January 5, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, 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 uses the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark in connection with aerospace, aeronautics, electronic systems, information and technology services, integrated systems and solutions and space systems, as well as a wide variety of goods and services related thereto. Complainant owns the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark through numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 202203, registered December 10, 1996). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark, as it simply adds a hyphen after the mark and the generic term “transit” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, as demonstrated by the available WHOIS information. Further, Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant or being affiliated with Complainant.
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant or as being affiliated with Complainant. Further, by using Complainant’s logos on its website, there can be no doubt that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation of Bethesda, MD, USA. Complainant is the owner of domestic and international registrations for the marks LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED MARTIN, as well as numerous variations thereof constituting the Lockheed family of marks. Complainant has continuously used its LOCKHEED MARTIN mark since at least as early as 1995 in connection with goods and services it provides in the aerospace, aeronautics, and space systems business as well as the technology business related to the same.
Respondent is Lock Heed Martins / Lock Heed Martins-Transit, of Oyo, Nigeria.
Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Scottsdale, AZ, USA. The Panel notes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name on or about September 15, 2015.
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 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.”).
Complainant owns the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark through numerous trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 202203, registered December 10, 1996). Complainant uses the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark in connection with aerospace, aeronautics, electronic systems, information and technology services, integrated systems and solutions and space systems, as well as a wide variety of goods and services related thereto. The Panel finds that the registrations indicate Complainant has rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations [with the USPTO] establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark, because Respondent simply adds a hyphen after the mark and the generic term “transit” and the gTLD “.com.” Past panels have held that such changes are insignificant under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Teleplace, Inc. v. De Oliveira, FA 95835 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the domain names <teleplace.org>, <tele-place.com>, and <theteleplace.com> are confusingly similar to the complainant’s TELEPLACE trademark); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term). The Panel here finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel recognizes 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 Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). The Complainant has met this burden.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Respondent has not been licensed or authorized to use the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark. The Panel notes that although “Lock Heed Martins” is listed as registrant of the disputed domain name, there is no other available information in the record demonstrating the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel further notes that Respondent has failed to submit a Response in this proceeding to refute any of Complainant’s contentions. The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not “commonly known by” the <shantiyogaworks.com> domain name despite listing its name as “Shanti Yoga Works” in its WHOIS contact information because there was “no affirmative evidence before the Panel that the respondent was ever ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name prior to its registration of the disputed domain name”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the disputed domain name for an inactive page displaying a blog template along with Complainant’s registered LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark and logo, which Complainant believes is likely to mislead Internet users into believing that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant. Prior panels have held that such use is not consistent with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name. See Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). The Panel here finds that Respondent’s passing off behavior does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), respectively.
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
As the Respondent has not provided a response to this action, the Respondent has failed to meet its burden regarding proof of any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain.
The Complainant has proven this element.
The Panel notes that Complainant has apparently failed to make any direct arguments under Policy ¶ 4(b). However the Panel finds that such arguments are not mandatory under the Policy—so long as Complainant shows bad faith use and registration in some manner. See Digi Int’l Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith).
Complainant maintains that Respondent uses the disputed domain name for an inactive page displaying a blog template along with Complainant’s registered LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark and logo, which Complainant believes is likely to mislead Internet users into believing that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant. Complainant also argues that Respondent’s passing off behavior demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Previous panels have founds such behavior supports a finding of bad faith registration and use. See Target Brands, Inc. v. JK Internet Servs., FA 349108 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 14, 2004) (finding bad faith because the respondent not only registered Complainant’s famous TARGET mark, but “reproduced . . . Complainant’s TARGET mark . . . [and] added Complainant’s distinctive red bull’s eye [at the domain name] . . . to a point of being indistinguishable from the original.”). The Panel here finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent makes no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Complainant has proven this element.
As the Complainant has established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s requested relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lockheedmartin-transit.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: January 19, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page