Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Matthew Goodchild
Claim Number: FA1807001798412
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Naresh Kilaru of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, United States of America. Respondent is Matthew Goodchild (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lockheedmartins.org>, registered with GoDaddy.com, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 24, 2018; the Forum received payment on July 24, 2018.
On July 25, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lockheedmartins.org> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 July 26, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 15, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@lockheedmartins.org. Also on July 26, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 August 20, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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(s) be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Lockheed Martin Corporation, is the world’s largest defense contractor and a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 100,000 people worldwide.
Complainant has rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
Respondent’s <lockheedmartins.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because Respondent includes the entire mark in its domain name simply adding the letter “s” and the “.org” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <lockheedmartins.org> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and is not authorized by Complainant to use the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark. Respondent fails to use the disputed domain in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent fails to actively use the domain name’s resolving webpage. Furthermore, Respondent has engaged in the act of typosquatting by purposely adding the letter “s” to LOCKHEED MARTIN.
Respondent registered and uses the <lockheedmartins.org> domain name in bad faith as Respondent fails to make any use of the resolving webpage for the domain name. Additionally, Respondent has engaged in the act of typosquatting by purposefully misspelling Complainant’s mark. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark as demonstrated by its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Complainant’s rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark existed prior to Respondent’s registration of the at-issue domain name.
Respondent fails to actively use the <lockheedmartins.org> domain name.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of USPTO trademark registration for the LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark evidences its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”)
Additionally, the at-issue domain name is a misspelling or mistyping of Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark where Respondent strikes the space and adds an “s” to Complainant’s trademark. The domain name concludes with a necessary top level domain name, here “.org.” Further, there is no doubt that Respondent picked the at-issue domain name precisely because it is easily confused with Complainant’s well known trademark. The slight differences between the <lockheedmartins.org> domain name and Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark are insufficient to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) Respondent’s <lockheedmartins.org> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark. See LodgeWorks Partners, L.P. v. Isaac Goldstein / POSTE RESTANTE, FA 1717300 (Forum Apr. 5, 2017) (“The Panel agrees; Respondent’s <archerhotels.com> is confusingly similar to complainant’s ARCHER HOTEL mark.”); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) (“A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them.”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the registrant as “Matthew Goodchild” and the record contains no evidence that otherwise tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <lockheedmartins.org> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Furthermore, Respondent’s at-issue domain name addresses a website lacking any substantive content. Complainant shows that browsing to <lockheedmartins.org> returns a 404 error message. Such use of the at-issue domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s <lockheedmartins.org> domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Notably, the templates identifying bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are without limitation. See, e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). As discussed below, unenumerated bad faith circumstances are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First, Respondent’s failure to make use of the at-issue domain name suggests Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Additionally, Respondent’s overt misspelling of Complainant’s trademark in the at-issue domain name shows that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses, or intends to use, the resulting string in a domain name hoping that internet users will either inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services related to the domain name’s target trademark and/or on viewing the domain name will confuse the domain name with its target trademark. Here, in creating the at-issue domain name Respondent modifies Complainant’s trademark by adding an “s” thereto. Typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1503001610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (“Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also, Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Finally, Respondent registered the <lockheedmartins.org> domain name knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s overt misspelling of the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark within the domain name. It is thus clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain names to improperly exploit its trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <lockheedmartins.org> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lockheedmartins.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: August 22, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page