DECISION

 

Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Brian Wachter

Claim Number: FA2402002083661

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Brian Wachter ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <lockheed.ai>, registered with Key-Systems GmbH.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 13, 2024; Forum received payment on February 13, 2024.

 

On February 15, 2024, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lockheed.ai> domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH 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 February 15, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 6, 2024 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@lockheed.ai. Also on February 15, 2024, 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 March 7, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is the world's largest defense contractor and a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 100,000 people worldwide. It is primarily engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. Complainant maintains over 450 facilities in all 50 states throughout the United States, as well as international business locations around the world. Complainant's origins date back over a century, to when aircraft pioneers Glenn L. Martin and the Loughead brothers—Allan and Malcolm—completed maiden voyages in their individual flying machines in 1909 and 1913 respectively. In 1912, the Glenn L. Martin Company officially incorporated. In 1917, after a brief partnership with the Wright Company, Glenn Martin reestablished the company in Ohio. In 1957, the company changed its name to The Martin Company, and in 1960, the Martin Company merged with American-Marietta Company to become Martin Marietta. In 1918, operating as "Loughead Aircraft Manufacturing Company," the Loughead brothers made their first military sale of Curtiss HS-2L flying boats to the U.S. Navy. In 1920, the company and the brothers changed their names from "Loughead" to "Lockheed." In 1926, the Lockheed Aircraft Company was formed. By the end of the 1920s, Lockheed Aircraft Company was supplying aircraft to the U.S. military. The company changed its name again in 1932 to Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, and again in 1977 to Lockheed Corporation. In 1995, Martin Marietta and Lockheed Corporation combined their operations. Over the years, Complainant and its heritage companies have been involved with many of the most famous and iconic moments in aviation history (e.g. flights by Charles and Anne Lindberg, Amelia Earhart, Howard Hughes, space exploration). Today, the majority of Complainant's business is with the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. federal government agencies, but its business also encompasses commercial, as well as international government sales of products, services, and platforms. In 2017, Complainant's sales exceeded $51 billion. Complainant has rights in the LOCKHEED mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 2002.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LOCKHEED mark because it wholly incorporates the mark and merely adds the ".ai" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website purports to offer products and services related to artificial intelligence; these are not related to products or services offered by Complainant.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LOCKHEED mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark LOCKHEED, with rights dating back to at least 2002 and uses it to provide a variety of products and services for defense and aerospace.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2023.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domain name resolves to a web site that purports to offer products and services that are not related to those of Complainant.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's LOCKHEED mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".ai" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). This does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person, 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"); see also Abbott Labs v. Whois Svc., FA 1254682 (Forum May 14, 2009) ("the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark"); see also Twitter, Inc. v. Jie, FA 1919786 (Forum Dec. 9, 2020) ("The Panel considers the disputed domain name [<twitter.luxe>] to be identical to Complainant's registered [TWITTER] trademark"). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark in any way. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to identify a respondent. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant as "Brian Wachter". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving website purports to offer products and services that are not related to those of Complainant. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent's use of the complainant's LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent's own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that the respondent's commercial use of a confusingly similar domain name suggests that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug.21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). And the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website promotes products and services unrelated to Complainant's business. Such use of a domain name can demonstrate a respondent's bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting); see also Fossil, Inc. v. wwwfossil-watch.org c/o Hostmaster, Case No. FA 335513 (Forum Nov. 9, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent attempted to profit from the fame of complainant's trademark by attracting internet traffic to his website). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lockheed.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: March 7, 2024