DECISION

 

Leidos, Inc. v. Leidos Leidos / Leidos

Claim Number: FA2408002109952

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Leidos, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Kandis M. Koustenis of Bean Kinney & Korman, PC, United States. Respondent is Leidos Leidos / Leidos ("Respondent"), United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <leidosapps.com> and <app-leidos.com>, registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 6, 2024; Forum received payment on August 6, 2024.

 

On August 7, 2024, Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc confirmed by email to Forum that the <leidosapps.com> and <app-leidos.com> domain names are registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc 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 August 7, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 27, 2024 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@leidosapps.com and postmaster@app-leidos.com. Also on August 7, 2024, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email adresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 28, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant provides computer software, training, research, and other goods and services across a variety of industry sectors throughout the world. Complainant has used the LEIDOS mark for its goods and services since 2013, and owns longstanding United States trademark registrations for LEIDOS in standard character form. Complainant asserts that LEIDOS is an arbitrary term with no meaning other than to identify Complainant.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain names <leidosapps.com> and <app-leidos.com> in July 2024, approximately one month after a decision was rendered against Respondent in a separate proceeding involving four similar domain names, using the same fictitious registration information that Respondent had used for those domain names. See Leidos, Inc. v. Leidos Leidos / Leidos, FA 2098583 (Forum July 11, 2024) (ordering transfer of <leidos-apps.com>, <leidos-app.com>, <global-leidos.com> and <leidos-global.com>). The domain names are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, and that include login pages prompting the user to enter a username and password. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain names <leidosapps.com> and <app-leidos.com> are confusingly similar to its LEIDOS mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

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 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/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated July 24, 2024), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Each of the disputed domain names <leidosapps.com> and <app-leidos.com> incorporates Complainant's registered LEIDOS trademark, adding the generic term "app" or "apps," set off from the mark in one instance by a hyphen, and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Leidos, Inc. v. Leidos Leidos / Leidos, FA 2098583, supra (finding <leidos-apps.com> and <leidos-app.com> confusingly similar to LEIDOS). The Panel considers each of the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 names incorporate Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and their sole apparent use has been for misleading websites that attempted to pass off as Complainant for what the Panel infers to be fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Leidos, Inc. v. Leidos Leidos / Leidos, FA 2098583, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Leidos, Inc. v. Lar Frank, FA 2094680 (Forum May 20, 2024) (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain names, 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 names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was registered "in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent] ha[s] engaged in a pattern of such conduct." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a 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 has on multiple occasions used fictitious registration information to register domain names incorporating Complainant's registered mark and used them for websites that attempted to pass off as Complainant for fraudulent purposes. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Leidos, Inc. v. Leidos Leidos / Leidos, FA 2098583, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Leidos, Inc. v. Lar Frank, supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <leidosapps.com> and <app-leidos.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: August 28, 2024