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.

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 1.2.6.1 of the URS.

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

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 1.2.6.2 has also been proven.

[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.

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 file any response to contest the above. Therefore, Examiner finds that the third element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven.

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

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:

lockheedmartin.kim

	Complainant Submitted: October 27, 2017
	Commencement: October 27, 2017
	Default Date: November 14, 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: 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: worker wen nai pei of Xiamen, China
	Respondent Representative: worker wen nai pei of Xiamen, China

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

	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.
	Flip Jan Claude Petillion, as Examiner