Lockheed Martin Corporation v. 文乃沛 (Wen Nai Pei)

Claim Number: FA1710001755981






Complainant: Lockheed Martin Corporation of Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.

Complainant Representative: McDermott Will & Emery LLP of Irvine, California, United States of America.


Respondent: (Wen Nai Pei) of Le Jia International, No. 999 Liang Mu Road, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, CN 311121.



Registries: Afilias plc

Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)



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.


David L. Kreider (柯瑞德先生), as Examiner.  The Examiner is proficient in Mandarin Chinese as a second language, in addition to his native English.



Complainant submitted: October 27, 2017

Commencement: October 27, 2017   

Default Decision Date: November 16, 2017 

Response Date: November 16, 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.



URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.


The Examiner notes that Respondent submitted a Chinese language form Response in blank, which is dated November 16, 2017.  Under each of the three elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6, that is URS,, and, respectively, under each heading 『答复』, meaning “answer” or “response”, the spaces were left blank by Respondent, who merely signed the Response at the bottom of the page.


The record makes clear that the Complainant "holds a valid national or regional registration and that [it] is in current use".  The Examiner finds that the second-level portion of the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN registered trademark. As the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, the new gTLD “.KIM” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825).  As the registered domain name is identical to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration that is in current use, the Examiner considers that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the URS in accordance with paragraph of the URS.


Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he or she is commonly known under the disputed domain name.  There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in LOCKHEED MARTIN and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either.  Respondent does not contest the arguments of Complainant.  Therefore, Examiner finds that the second element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS has also been proven. The passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use, especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, the failure of the respondent to respond to the complaint, inconceivable good faith use, etc. (See e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763; Liu.Jo S.p.A. v. Martina Hamsikova, WIPO Case No. D2013-1261). In the present case, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name as it does not resolve to any active website. It is inconceivable to the Examiner that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name which is identical to Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN registered trademark.  Given the well-known and non-descriptive character of Complainant's LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark, Respondent must have had Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name.  Moreover, Examiner finds that, given the distinctive character of the Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark, it is difficult to imagine any future good faith use of the disputed domain name by Respondent.  Respondent did not contest Complainant’s arguments or evidence in its Response.  Therefore, Examiner finds that the third element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS has been proven.



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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.





David L. Kreider (柯瑞德先生), Examiner

Dated:  November 17, 2017



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page