Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Meghan Russo / Lockheed Martin
Claim Number: FA2004001891540
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Naresh Kilaru of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, United States of America. Respondent is Meghan Russo / Lockheed Martin (“Respondent”), Colorado, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lockheedsmartins.com>, registered with 1&1 IONOS SE.
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.
Alan L Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 9, 2020; the Forum received payment on April 9, 2020.
On April 10, 2020, 1&1 IONOS SE confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lockheedsmartins.com> domain name is registered with 1&1 IONOS SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 1&1 IONOS SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the 1&1 IONOS SE 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 April 13, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 4, 2020 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@lockheedsmartins.com. Also on April 13, 2020, 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 May 5, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L Limbury 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, Lockheed Martin Corporation, is the world’s largest contractor and a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 100,000 people worldwide. Complainant has rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Respondent’s <lockheedsmartins.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <lockheedsmartins.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant did not authorize Respondent to use the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use since the domain name resolves to an inactive webpage.
Respondent registered and uses the <lockheedsmartins.com> domain name in bad faith. The domain name is currently inactive. Given that the domain name is a typosquatted version of Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark, the domain name could be used in phishing schemes aimed at defrauding Complainant or its customers. The fact that Respondent has registered the domain name falsely identifying herself with Lockheed Martin on the underlying WHOIS record further indicates Respondent’s fraudulent intent. Given the highly distinctive nature of the LOCKHEED MARTIN marks and their world-wide fame, it is difficult to imagine any good-faith use to which the domain name might be put.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark both at common law and through several registrations with the USPTO, including Reg. No. 2,022,037, registered Dec. 10, 1996. Respondent’s <lockheedsmartins.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding the letter “s” twice and the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain, which may be disregarded.
Complainant has established this element.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant’s assertions constitute a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Accordingly, the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant has established this element.
The domain name was registered on October 18, 2019, many years after the registration of Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark had become famous worldwide. The domain name wholly incorporates the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark, adding only the letter “s” twice. The conclusion is inescapable that Respondent was well aware of Complainant and its mark when registering the domain name and that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting, which by itself constitutes bad faith. See Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Matthew Goodchild, Case No. FA1807001798412 (Forum Aug. 22, 2018) (“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).”).
The domain name does not resolve to an active website and it is difficult to imagine any good faith use to which the domain name <lockheedsmartins.com> could be put, since it comprises a typosquatted version Complainant’s highly-distinctive and famous LOCKHEED MARTIN mark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0), ¶ 3.3 (factors to be considered under the doctrine of passive holding include “the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark” and “the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”); See Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Armando Castorena, Case No. FA1702001717508 (Forum Mar. 17, 2017) (“Respondent’s <lockheedmartinco.org> resolves to a blank webpage displaying a ‘404’ error message. Previous panels have found that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use is evidence of bad faith”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant has established this element.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lockheedsmartins.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L Limbury, Panelist
Dated: May 12, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page