Lockheed Martin Corporation v. hayrabet kucukkoseoglu
Claim Number: FA2106001951164
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is hayrabet kucukkoseoglu ("Respondent"), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lockheedmartinparts.com>, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 15, 2021; the Forum received payment on June 15, 2021.
On June 16, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <lockheedmartinparts.com> 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 June 16, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 6, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@lockheedmartinparts.com. Also on June 16, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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.
The Forum received email correspondence from Respondent on June 16, 2021.
Having received no formal response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 8, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 a formal response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is the world's largest defense contractor and a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 100,000 people and maintains facilities across the United States and in many other countries. Complainant has used the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark since its formation in 1995 by the combination of Martin Marietta and Lockheed Corporation. Complainant owns registrations for the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark in standard character form in the United States and many other jurisdictions, and also claims common-law rights in the mark.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <lockheedmartinparts.com> via a privacy registration service in May 2020. The domain name is being used to display pay-per-click links unrelated to Complainant's services. Complainant contacted Respondent in January 2021 regarding the disputed domain name. Complainant's demand letter also challenged Respondent's use of a different domain name, <usapart.com>, for a website that displayed Complainant's marks and offered used and possibly modified parts for Complainant's aircraft. Respondent replied to the letter, stating that the <lockheedmartinparts.com> domain name is inactive and has never been used, and offering to transfer it. Respondent also stated that the <usapart.com> website has not operated in more than four years and has been taken down. Respondent did not reply to Complainant's follow-up communications regarding a transfer of the <lockheedmartinparts.com> domain name. Complainant states that Respondent subsequently renewed the registration of the domain name in May 2021. Complainant states further that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <lockheedmartinparts.com> is confusingly similar to its LOCKHEED MARTIN mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. In email correspondence to the Forum, Respondent stated as follows:
Lockheedmartinparts.com web side never used.
It is no longer belongs to me.
Thanks for your cooperation.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <lockheedmartinparts.com> incorporates Complainant's registered LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark, omitting the space and adding the generic term "parts" and the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Donovan Reid, FA 1798475 (Forum Aug. 16, 2018) (finding <lockheedmartindrone.com> confusingly similar to LOCKHEED MARTIN); General Motors LLC v. Tustin Pontiac, FA 1943721 (Forum June 1, 2021) (finding <gmparts.com> confusingly similar to GM). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and its sole apparent use has been to display unrelated pay-per-click links. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. ICS INC., FA 1507602 (Forum Aug. 7, 2013) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Tupelo aeronautics, Inc., FA 1463020 (Forum Oct. 30, 2012) (same). Furthermore, Respondent has in email correspondence effectively disavowed any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent'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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating the mark and is using it to display pay-per-click links. Respondent knew of Complainant and its mark at the time of registration. After being contacted by Complainant, Respondent offered to transfer the disputed domain name but failed to do so despite repeated follow-up requests by Complainant. Respondent's conduct supports an inference of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Donovan Reid, supra (finding bad faith where domain name incorporating LOCKHEED MARTIN mark was used to display pay-per-click links); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Mr Healrd Diviolrg, FA 1562892 (Forum July 1, 2014) (finding bad faith based in part upon respondent's use of privacy registration service); New Jersey State Medical Underwriters, Inc. v. ELCARO aka Robert Crivelli, FA 103868 (Forum Feb. 22, 2002) (finding bad faith use where respondent failed to effectuate promised transfer of domain name and refused to sign registrant change agreement). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lockheedmartinparts.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 9, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page