DECISION

 

Lockheed Martin Corporation v. [Name Redacted]

Claim Number: FA2502002139434

PARTIES

Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is [Name Redacted] ("Respondent"), Pennsylvania, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <infolockheedmartin.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 10, 2025. Forum received payment on February 10, 2025.

 

On February 10, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <infolockheedmartin.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 February 11, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 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@infolockheedmartin.com. Also on February 11, 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.

 

On February 24, 2025, Respondent emailed Complainant's representatives, with a copy to Forum.

 

On March 4, 2025, an Additional Submission was received by Forum from Complainant.

 

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

 

On March 4, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 formal response from Respondent.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY THEFT

In the email of February 24, 2025, Respondent said:

 

"I have no idea how my personal data was attached to Lockheed Martin's domain names. Please provide me a copy of the complaint if it is different than the attached document. Please explain how such an odd data connection could be made. I have never and do not intend to seek a domain name belonging to Lockheed Martin. I have never engaged in any action that would indicate I did or do. I have no exhibit or document to disprove that which does not and never existed.

 

An error has been made, and I hope and expect any illusion that I am affiliated with such a domain to be eliminated. I do not want the domain name and have no domain names that even remotely insinuate some crossover of the name. I fully agree that Lockheed Martin should have this domain free of interference. In addition to an explanation about how this error happened in the first place, I want clear confirmation that my name, falsely applied in the first place, will be removed from a domain belonging to Lockheed Martin and from a complaint stating that I was engaged in any way in using the domain." 

 

In its Additional Submission, Complainant accepts that the WHOIS information listed for the domain name is false and requests that Respondent's identifying information be redacted from the Panelist's published decision.

 

According to Policy paragraph 4(j), "[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision." In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005) the panels omitted the respondents' personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft.

 

The Panel is satisfied that Respondent had nothing to do with the registration of the <infolockheedmartin.com> domain name, which was registered in the name of [Name Redacted] without the knowledge or authorization of [Name Redacted]. This constitutes identity theft.

 

Accordingly, pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j), the Panel determines it appropriate in the circumstances of this case that the name of the person listed in the WHOIS registration information in relation to the <infolockheedmartin.com> domain name at the time of commencement of this proceeding (i.e. the Respondent, as defined in Rule 1) be redacted.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER

As is clear from Respondent's email of February 24, 2025 that Respondent consents to the transfer of the <infolockheedmartin.com> domain name to Complainant.

 

Accordingly, the Panel considers it appropriate to order the transfer without embarking on the traditional Policy analysis. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.").

 

DECISION

Respondent having consented to the transfer of the domain name to Complainant, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

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

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: March 5, 2025