Leidos, Inc. v. Nadia Doh
Claim Number: FA2204001991901
Complainant is Leidos, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Malcolm W. Thomas of Bean, Kinney & Korman P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Nadia Doh (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <leidosinc.net>, registered with Google LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 11, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 11, 2022.
On April 12, 2022, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <leidosinc.net> domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google 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 April 14, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 4, 2022 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@leidosinc.net. Also on April 14, 2022, 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 12, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <leidosinc.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LEIDOS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <leidosinc.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <leidosinc.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant operates in the American defense, aviation, information, and biomedical research industries. Complainant holds a registration for the LEIDOS mark with the USPTO (Reg. 5,475,704, registered May 22, 2018).
Respondent registered the <leidosinc.net> domain name on January 6, 2022, and makes no active use of the 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 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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the LEIDOS mark through its registration with the USPTO. See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant’s registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <leidosinc.net> domain name incorporates Complainant’s LEIDOS mark in whole with the generic abbreviation “inc” and the “.net” gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding an abbreviation to a protected mark is insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark. See SEMCO Prods., LLC v. dmg world media (uk) ltd, FA 913881 (Forum Apr. 9, 2007) (finding that the <atlhomeshow.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s ATLANTA HOME SHOW mark, as “atl” was a common abbreviation for the city of Atlanta). Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s <leidosinc.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LEIDOS mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“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”).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <leidosinc.net> domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the LEIDOS mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Nadia Doh.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as it is not actively used. Past panels have found that inactively holding a disputed domain is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v. Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) (“Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).”) Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name showing that it does not resolve to a webpage. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <leidosinc.net> in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainants mark, contending that Complaint’s mark is unique and arbitrary and it is therefore unlikely that Respondent registered the disputed domain without actual knowledge of Complainant’s LEIDOS mark. The Panel agrees and find that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with bad faith actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LEIDOS mark. See McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 11:6 (4th ed. 2000) (“Fanciful marks are referred to as the ‘strongest’ of all marks, in that their novelty creates a substantial impact on the buyer's mind—if sufficiently advertised and recognized. Being a ‘strong’ mark has significance, in that the mark will then be given an expansive scope of judicial protection into different product or geographical markets and as to more variations of format.”); see also Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (“Because of the fanciful nature of the ZYBAN mark, the Panel can infer that Respondent knew of Complainant's rights in the mark at registration.”)
Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent inactively holds the domain name. The Panel agrees and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) (“Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website.”)
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <leidosinc.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: May 13, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page