Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Li Xiao Xiao
Claim Number: FA1612001709238
Complainant: Lockheed Martin Corporation of Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: McDermott Will & Emery LLP of Irvine, California, United States of America.
Respondent: Li Xiao Xiao of CO, Wai Guo, International, HK.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Over Corner, LLC
Registrars: Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
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.
Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: December 22, 2016
Commencement: December 22, 2016
Default Date: January 6, 2017
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.
There are no multiple complainants or respondents and no extraneous domain names require dismissal.
The Complainant, Lockheed Martin Corporation of Bethesda, United States, is entitled to a presumption of ownership, validity, and the exclusive right to use its LOCKHEED MARTIN word trademark in connection with clothes (US trademark registration No. 2762006 registered on September 9, 2003 to cover goods and services in class 25).
The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s domain name, <lockheedmartin.ltd> is identical or confusingly similar to the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark, and was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent who has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
On October 17, 2016, the Complainant’s counsel sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent but it did not respond.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires the Complainant
to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing
evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a
domain name should be suspended.
IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is the registered owner of the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The Domain Name fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks and merely adds the extension “.ltd”. It is well established that the specific top level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between trademark and disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
The Respondent does not have any rights in the name “Lockheed Martin” nor is the Respondent commonly known by this name. Moreover, the Complainant has not authorized Respondent’s use of its mark and has no affiliation with the Respondent.
Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to support a possible basis on which the Respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the Examiner accepts the Complainant’s unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and concludes that the second element of paragraph 1.2.6.2. of the URS Procedure is satisfied.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
The Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith since he knew or must have known of the Complainant's mark when registering <lockheedmartin.ltd>.
The Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name which itself can be considered as a bad faith use of a domain name. Moreover, the Respondent ignored the cease and desist letter send by the Complainant which the Examiner found to be a further evidence of bad faith.
In the light of above, registering a domain name corresponding to a reputable trademark, and subsequent passive holding of such a domain, thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain, is considered to satisfy the standard set out in paragraph 1.2.6.3. of the URS Procedure.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Piotr Nowaczyk, Examiner
Dated: January 06, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page