Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Trey Andrews / lockheedmartinmd
Claim Number: FA1709001748885
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Sarah E Bro of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Trey Andrews / lockheedmartinmd ("Respondent"), South Carolina, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lockheedmartinmd.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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on September 13, 2017; the Forum received payment on September 13, 2017.
On September 15, 2017, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <lockheedmartinmd.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 September 18, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 10, 2017 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@lockheedmartinmd.com. Also on September 18, 2017, 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 October 12, 2017, 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 is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 98,000 people worldwide. Complainant's marks include LOCKHEED, which has used been used by Complainant and a predecessor-in-interest since 1926, and LOCKHEED MARTIN, which Complainant adopted in 1995. Complainant owns multiple registrations for these marks in the United States and other jurisdictions, and asserts that they have become famous through the efforts of Complainant and its licensees.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <lockheedmartinmd.com> in May 2017. Complainant states that the domain name has been used in at least one email message in which Respondent posed as an employee of Complainant and submitted a fraudulent purchase order to one of Complainant's suppliers; Complainant is unaware of any use that has been made of the domain name. On these grounds Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED MARTIN marks; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in 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 is being 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(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 (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 <lockheedmartinmd.com> incorporates Complainant's registered LOCKHEED MARTIN mark, omitting the space and adding "md" and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Shirley T. Barnes / malca-mit, FA 1723479 (Forum May 10, 2017) (finding <lockheedmartin-corp.com> confusingly similar to LOCKHEED MARTIN); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Office Rolls, FA 1651015 (Forum Dec. 30, 2015) (finding <lockheedmartincorp.com> confusingly similar to LOCKHEED MARTIN); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Counter Balance Enterprises Ltd. / Counter Balance, FA 1405603 (Forum Oct. 17, 2011) (finding <lockheedmarting.com> confusingly similar to LOCKHEED MARTIN); Moroccanoil, Inc., Moroccanoil Israel Ltd, & 3903150 Canada Inc., d/b/a Moroccanoil v. Mac Davis, FA 1450981 (Forum Aug. 20, 2012) (finding <moroccanoilmd.com> confusingly similar to MOROCCANOIL); Bloomberg, L.P. v. David Cohen, FA 96600 (Forum Feb. 19, 2001) (finding <bloombergmd.com> confusingly similar to BLOOMBERG). The Panel finds the disputed domain name <lockheedmartinmd.com> to be confusingly similar to Complainant's LOCKHEED MARTIN mark.
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 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name merely appends two letters to Complainant's mark, and its only known use has been in connection with a fraudulent scheme, indicating that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Shirley T. Barnes / malca-mit, supra (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where domain name incorporating complainant's mark was used in connection with fraudulent email scheme); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Office Rolls, supra (same).
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., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Shirley T. Barnes / malca-mit, supra (finding bad faith where domain name incorporating complainant's mark was used in connection with fraudulent email scheme); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Office Rolls, supra (same). 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 <lockheedmartinmd.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: October 20, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page