DECISION

 

Leidos, Inc. v. Leidos Leidos

Claim Number: FA2412002128338

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Leidos, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Kandis M. Koustenis of Bean Kinney & Korman, PC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Leidos Leidos ("Respondent"), New York, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <global-leidosmall.com>, <globalleidosmall.com>, <leidos-mall.com> and <leidosmall.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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On December 6, 2024, Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <global-leidosmall.com>, <globalleidosmall.com>, <leidos-mall.com> and <leidosmall.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 December 10, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 30, 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@global-leidosmall.com, postmaster@globalleidosmall.com, postmaster@leidos-mall.com and postmaster@leidosmall.com. Also on December 10, 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 December 31, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant asserts rights in the LEIDOS mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,937,101, registered April 12, 2016). The LEIDOS mark is widely recognized by consumers as uniquely identifying Complainant as the source of goods and services offered under the mark. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's LEIDOS mark, as each incorporates the mark in its entirety, with the addition of generic terms such as "global" and/or "mall," sometimes separated by a hyphen, followed by the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and has not been authorized or licensed by Complainant to use the LEIDOS mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme.

 

iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. By impersonating Complainant to carry out a phishing scheme, Respondent disrupts Complainant's business and derives commercial gain. Respondent's provision of false and misleading contact information during registration further evidences bad faith. Moreover, Respondent has engaged in a pattern of abusive domain name registrations targeting Complainant. There is no plausible scenario under which Respondent could legitimately register or use the disputed domain names. Additionally, Respondent's actions demonstrate knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LEIDOS mark at the time of registration.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The domain names <global-leidosmall.com> and <globalleidosmall.com> were registered on October 20, 2024, while the domain names <leidos-mall.com> and <leidosmall.com> were registered on October 8, 2024.

 

2. Complainant holds established rights in the LEIDOS mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,937,101, registered April 12, 2016).

 

3. An Internet user has been deceived by Respondent's use of the domain name <global-leidosmall.com> and defrauded of substantial funds.

 

4. Respondent disrupts Complainant's business and derives commercial benefit by impersonating Complainant as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme.

 

5. Respondent has a documented history of bad faith registration and use, specifically targeting 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

Complainant asserts rights in the LEIDOS mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,937,101, registered April 12, 2016). Registration with the USPTO generally suffices to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has submitted evidence of its USPTO registration. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the LEIDOS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain names <global-leidosmall.com>, <globalleidosmall.com>, <leidos-mall.com> and <leidosmall.com> are confusingly similar to its LEIDOS mark. Each disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the LEIDOS mark, merely appending the generic terms "global" and/or "mall," with some including a hyphen, as well as the ".com" gTLD.

 

The addition of generic terms and a gTLD is insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("Respondent merely adds the term 'supports' and a '.org' gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Similarly, the inclusion of a hyphen does not differentiate the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark. See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) (finding that the addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in determining confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Central Source LLC v. annualcreditreport-com.us, No. 1:14CV305, 2014 WL 3767071, at *7 (E.D. Va. 2014) (holding that the use of a hyphen did not sufficiently distinguish the marks and constituted "typosquatting").

 

Based on the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's LEIDOS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent is neither authorized nor permitted to use Complainant's mark in any manner. Despite being listed in the WHOIS information as "Leidos Leidos / Leidos," Respondent is not commonly known by the LEIDOS name. Complainant argues that Respondent provided a false and improper mailing address to the Registrar for the registration of each disputed domain name. LEIDOS is an arbitrary term with no meaning beyond identifying Complainant as the exclusive source of certain products and services. The Panel notes that there is no evidence in the record suggesting Respondent is authorized to use the mark or commonly known by the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use and instead impersonates Complainant to execute a fraudulent phishing scheme. Phishing schemes are inconsistent with rights or legitimate interests. See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that a respondent's attempt to impersonate a complainant via emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, and thus the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

Complainant submits evidence, including screenshots, showing that each disputed domain name resolves to identical websites falsely displaying the LEIDOS mark as their logo, along with login and registration forms. The websites purport to affiliate with a software development company and solicit users to submit personal information. They also link to a "service" page redirecting users to Telegram and WhatsApp, with a WhatsApp number listed under the name "Leidos." Additionally, at least one individual has reported being defrauded of significant funds via the <global-leidosmall.com> domain, as documented in an email to Complainant dated November 3, 2024.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant and facilitate a fraudulent phishing scheme constitutes 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). See Leidos, Inc. v Larry Desmond / xyz Inc., FA 1832572 (Forum Apr. 15, 2019) ("Using a confusingly similar domain name to phish for personal/financial information by passing off as a complainant in emails can evince a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith by disrupting Complainant's business and deriving commercial benefit through impersonation in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Using a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant for fraudulent purposes constitutes bad faith by disrupting the complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or by attempting to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).").

 

As noted, each disputed domain name resolves to identical websites falsely displaying the LEIDOS mark as their own logo, including a login and registration form. The sites claim affiliation with a software development company and solicit personal information. They also redirect users to a "service" page linking to Telegram and WhatsApp, with a WhatsApp phone number listed as "Leidos." At least one individual reported being defrauded of significant funds via the <global-leidosmall.com> domain, as evidenced in an email dated November 3, 2024. Based on these findings, the Panel agrees that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant also asserts that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration targeting Complainant, as evidenced by prior UDRP proceedings. On June 11, 2024, Complainant was awarded transfer of four domain names owned by Respondent that combined the LEIDOS mark with generic terms. Subsequently, on July 14, 2024, Respondent registered two similar domain names, resulting in another UDRP proceeding where Complainant was awarded transfer on August 28, 2024. Undeterred, Respondent registered the current disputed domain names in October 2024 and began using them to impersonate Complainant and defraud Internet users. The Panel finds that this pattern of conduct demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LEIDOS mark. The Panel observes that the LEIDOS mark is widely recognized as exclusively identifying Complainant as the source of its goods and services. Each disputed domain name resolves to identical websites impersonating Complainant by using the LEIDOS mark and logo, including login and registration forms. Coupled with Respondent's pattern of targeting Complainant, the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LEIDOS mark at the time of registration. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <global-leidosmall.com>, <globalleidosmall.com>, <leidos-mall.com> and <leidosmall.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: January 1, 2025