URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

Lockheed Martin Corporation v. 1&1 Internet Inc
Claim Number: FA1806001789811

DOMAIN NAME

<skunkworks.one>

PARTIES

	Complainant: Lockheed Martin Corporation of Fort Worth, TX, United States of America
	Complainant Representative: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Naresh Kilaru of Washington, DC, United States of America

	Respondent: 1&1 Internet Inc 1&1 Internet Inc of Chesterbrook, PA, US

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: One.com A/S
	Registrars: 1&1 Internet SE

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.
	Anne M. Wallace, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: June 1, 2018
	Commencement: June 12, 2018
	Default Date: June 27, 2018
	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: [OptionalComment]

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

Complainant owns SKUNK WORKS trademarks registered with USTPO. The disputed domain name is identical to the mark except for the gTLD .one.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Complainant has shown prima facie that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. There is nothing to show Respondent is commonly known by the mark, and there is nothing to show Respondent has made demonstrable preparation to use the domain name.

[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

Respondent's failure to use the domain name is evidence of bad faith.

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:

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:

skunkworks.one

Anne M. Wallace
Examiner
Dated: June 28, 2018

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page