Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Thierry Lemmens
Claim Number: FA1702001718575
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: Thierry Lemmens of Saint Andrae, International, FR.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Magic Pass, LLC
Registrars: Key-Systems, 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 Examiner in this proceeding.
Petter Rindforth, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: February 22, 2017
Commencement: February 23, 2017
Default Date: March 10, 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.
Findings of Fact:
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark LOCKHEED MARTIN, registered as:
U.S. Trademark registration No. 2762006 LOCKHEED MARTIN, registered on September 9, 2003 in respect of “shirts, tops, tee-shirts, sweatshirts, jackets, hats and caps” in Intl Class 25.
The Complainant has provided proof of use by a Trademark Clearinghouse validated proof of use.
The Respondent has not filed any comments/reply to the complaint.
Legal Findings and Conclusion:
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires 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 met the standard sets out in 1.2.6.1. of the URS Procedure since the Complainant has proved its right to the valid US Trademark Registration No. 2762006 LOCKHEED MARTIN. Further, the Complainant has proved that the said trademark is in current use by presenting a Trademark Clearinghouse validated proof of use.
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is <lockheedmartin>, as the added top-level domain – being a required element of every domain name – is generally irrelevant when assessing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar and in this case does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Examiner conclude that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark LOCKHEED MARTIN.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in <lockheedmartin.expert>, as the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register a domain name containing its registered and used trademark LOCKHEED MARTIN, nor is the Respondent commonly known by <lockheedmartin.expert>. The only current use is to a web site for register.be, stating that “this domain has been activated for a register.be customer”. Such passive use cannot base a conclusion supporting legitimate interests.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <lockheedmartin.expert>.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
1.2.6.3 of the URS requires a showing that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A non-exclusive list of circumstances that demonstrate bad faith registration and use by the Registrant (Respondent) include:
(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.
The trademark LOCKHEED MARTIN is distinctive, and – although registered in the United States, whereas the Respondent is based in Europe – is likely to have been known by the Respondent at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
There is no clear evidence or indications that fully support any conclusion that <lockheedmartin.expert> was registered primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or transfer this domain name to the Complainant or competitor for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs. There has been no communication between the Complainant and the Respondent, and there is no such information on the web site connected to <lockheedmartin.expert>.
As there is no information available on the business of the Respondent, the Examiner cannot either draw the conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.
As to the use of <lockheedmartin.expert>, the Examiner note that the disputed domain name is only linked to an inactive web site, basically informing that the disputed domain name is “activated” for a register.be customer. This is not active use that can base any conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to his 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 the Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.
However, also such inactive (“passive”) use can be use in bad faith. As said, <lockheedmartin.expert> clearly relates to the Complainant and Complainant’s registered and well-known trademark. Another possible ground for finding bad faith registrations and use is if the Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the trademark in a corresponding domain name. As the Complainant has provided information on, the Respondent seems to be engaged in a pattern of such conduct, as having registered several other third party trademarks under .expert.
Taking together the facts that the Complainant’s trademark is highly distinctive and well-known, that the disputed domain name is close to identical to the trademark, that <lockheedmartin.expert> is only used to point to a web site informing that the domain has been activated – with no information on who is the holder of <lockheedmartin.expert>, and that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations to prevent trademark owners from reflecting their trademarks in corresponding domain names, the Examiner cannot draw any other conclusion than that Respondent has registered and is using <lockheedmartin.expert> in bad faith.
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 name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Petter Rindforth, Examiner
Dated: March 15, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page