DECISION

 

Leidos, Inc. v. Jim Carlini / Leidos

Claim Number: FA2502002139316

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <leidoholdings.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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 February 9, 2025; Forum received payment on February 9, 2025.

 

On February 11, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <leidoholdings.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 13, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 5, 2025 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@leidoholdings.com. Also on February 13, 2025, 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 6, 2025, 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 name 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 name is confusingly similar to Complainant's LEIDOS mark, as it comprises a truncated and misspelled variation of Complainant's LEIDOS mark—"Leido," combined with "HOLDINGS"—a generic term, followed by the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has been authorized or licensed by Complainant to use the LEIDOS mark. Moreover, Respondent has provided false Whois information and, therefore, cannot be deemed to be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent utilizes the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme.

 

iii) Respondent both registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's mere passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes evidence that Respondent is acting in bad faith. By impersonating Complainant to conduct a phishing scheme, Respondent interferes with Complainant's business and derives commercial gain. Respondent's submission of false and misleading contact information during registration further supports a finding of bad faith. There is no conceivable legitimate use that Respondent could have for the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent's actions indicate 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 disputed domain name was registered on January 3, 2025.

 

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

 

3. The disputed domain name is currently parked and displays third-party links to services provided by the website developer Hostinger.com.

 

4. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails impersonating Complainant Leidos, seeking improper financial gain.

 

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). A registration with the USPTO generally suffices to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has provided evidence of its USPTO registration. Accordingly, the Panel determines that Complainant holds rights in the LEIDOS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <leidoholdings.com>, is confusingly similar to its LEIDOS mark as it contains a shortened and misspelled variation of Complainant's LEIDOS mark—"Leido," in combination with "HOLDINGS"—a generic term, followed by the ".com" gTLD. The inclusion of generic terms and a gTLD does not suffice 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 mere omission or addition of a single letter, along with a gTLD, fails to sufficiently differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Tanya Moulton, FA 2034214 (Forum Apr. 11, 2023) ("When a disputed domain name wholly incorporates another's mark, adding a single letter is insufficient to defeat a finding of confusing similarity."; finding <fwebsteronline.com> domain name confusingly similar to WEBSTER and WEBSTER ONLINE trademarks); ModCloth, Inc. v. James McAvoy, FA 1629102 (Forum Aug. 16, 2015) ("The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it differs from Complainant's mark by merely adding the letter 'L' . . . ").

 

In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is 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), at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does, in fact, hold 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. Although Respondent is listed in the WHOIS information as "Jim Carlini / Leidos," there is no indication that Respondent is commonly known by the LEIDOS name. Complainant argues that Respondent provided false and misleading mailing address information to the Registrar in connection with the registration of the disputed domain name. LEIDOS is an arbitrary term with no meaning beyond identifying Complainant as the exclusive source of certain products and services. Furthermore, the Panel notes that there is no evidence in the record to support that Respondent is authorized to use the mark or that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead impersonates Complainant to carry out a fraudulent phishing scheme. Such phishing schemes are fundamentally 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 has submitted a printout of an email from a third-party company's employee, dated January 15, 2025 (less than two weeks after Respondent registered the disputed domain name), describing an incident involving an individual using the name "Jim Carlini" and the email address. Using an email address configured with the disputed domain name, this individual posed as "Jim Carlini," pretending to be a Leidos buyer soliciting procurement recommendations from the third-party company through its website contact form. Fortunately, the third-party company's employee identified the email as a fraudulent scheme and immediately reported it to Complainant.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name 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).").

 

In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the considerations set forth above. Each of these factors contributes to the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response nor otherwise attempted 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 is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by impersonating Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme. The use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant for fraudulent purposes constitutes bad faith as it disrupts the complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or seeks 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, Respondent has used an email address configured with the disputed domain name to pose as "Jim Carlini," pretending to be a Leidos buyer soliciting procurement recommendations from a third-party company through its website contact form. The Panel further notes that Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate an employee of Complainant, thereby interfering with Complainant's business. Accordingly, the Panel finds that such use constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LEIDOS mark. The Panel observes that the LEIDOS mark is widely recognized as uniquely identifying Complainant as the exclusive source of its goods and services. Given that Respondent has engaged in a fraudulent phishing scheme impersonating an employee of Complainant, the Panel finds it reasonable to infer that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LEIDOS mark at the time of registration. In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name 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 <leidoholdings.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: March 7, 2025