URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Lockheed Martin Corporation v. MPLS, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1707001740323


DOMAIN NAME

<lockheedmartin.international>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Lockheed Martin Corporation of Bethesda, MD, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: McDermott Will & Emery LLP Sarah E. Bro of Irvine, CA, United States of America

   Respondent: MPLS, Inc. Ara Manoogian of Burbank, CA, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Wild Way, LLC
   Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC

EXAMINER


   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.
   Natalia Stetsenko, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: July 17, 2017
   Commencement: July 18, 2017
   Default Date: August 2, 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").

RELIEF SOUGHT


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

STANDARD OF REVIEW


   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION



   Findings of Fact: Complainant is a renowned global security and aerospace company. Complainant has established rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark based on US Registration No. 2,762,006 of September 9, 2003, which is currently in use as evidenced by validated entries at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse provided by Complainant in exhibits to the complaint.

  

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.


[URS 1.2.6.1] 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 


The disputed domain name is identical to the registered trademark. A mere addition of the gTLD “international” does not affect the identity/confusing similarity test. Therefore, Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Previous panels have found that LOCKHEED MARTIN is an “is an arbitrary mark” that is “highly distinctive,” which increases “the likelihood of Internet user confusion involving Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name.”, particularly in Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Ning Ye, WIPO Case No. D2000­1733 (May 17, 2001); Lockheed Martin Corporation v. WhoisGuard, Inc. FA 1695499 (Forum October 16, 2016). Respectively, the mark is not descriptive and Respondent can not have rights and legitimate interests in the name. 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 Domain Name. Respondent has not engaged in demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Therefore, Respondent does not have legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domains. Respectively, the requirements of paragraph 1.2.6.2 of the URS Procedure were satisfied.


[URS 1.2.6.3] 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 evidence on the record support Complainant’s arguments that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the domain name. Respondent’s use of the domain name to host a webpage providing click-through links to redirect users to sponsored websites, particularly using sponsored advertising links to direct to products or services that are seemingly related to Complainant’s business and/or its competitors, constitutes bad faith under the Policy.


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


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. 

DETERMINATION


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. lockheedmartin.international

 

Natalia Stetsenko
Examiner
Dated: August 7, 2017

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page