Leidos, Inc. v. david mayor
Claim Number: FA2304002042229
Complainant is Leidos, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kandis M. Koustenis of Bean Kinney & Korman, PC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is david mayor (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <leidoscareers.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) 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.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 28, 2023; Forum received payment on April 28, 2023.
On April 28, 2023, Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <leidoscareers.com> 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 May 1, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 22, 2023 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@leidoscareers.com. Also on May 1, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 24, 2023 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark LEIDOS registered, inter alia, in the USA for software related goods and services and used since at least 2013.
The Domain Name registered in 2023 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark adding only the generic term ‘careers’ and the gTLD ‘.com’ which do not prevent such confusing similarity.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been used for fraudulent e mail schemes which is clearly not bona fide or fair and constitutes registration and use in bad faith disrupting the Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark LEIDOS registered, inter alia, in the USA for software related goods and services since at least 2013.
The Domain Name registered in 2023 has been used for fraudulent e mail schemes.
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 Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant’s LEIDOS mark (registered in the USA for software related goods and services with first use recorded as 2013) the generic term ‘careers’ and the gTLD ‘.com’.
The addition of the generic word ‘careers’ to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark. See Abbott Laboratories v. Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec. 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of generic terms do not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant’s mark under Policy 4(a)(i).).
The gTLD ‘.com’ does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc v. Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The Domain Name has been used in fraudulent e mail phishing schemes impersonating the Complainant. This use cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. (See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) finding that ‘Passing off in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non commercial or fair use’.).
The Respondent has not provided a Response to this Complaint and the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant has not been rebutted.
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The impersonation of the Complainant in the Respondent’s fraudulent phishing e mail schemes shows that the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant, its rights, business and services. Impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant’s mark in a fraudulent phishing scheme is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding that respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4 (b)(iii). ).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was used in a fraudulent e mail scheme and registered and used in bad faith, and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(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 <leidoscareers.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: May 24, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page