DECISION

 

Lockheed Martin Corporation v. MOHAMMED ALOHAYDIB / lockheedmartin

Claim Number: FA2502002140078

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is MOHAMMED ALOHAYDIB / lockheedmartin ("Respondent"), represented by Yassin Abdullah Ben Adal Al-Mohammed of Unified Gulf Law Firm & Legal Consultancy, Saudi Arabia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <lockheed-martins.net>, registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Carol Stoner, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 13, 2025; Forum received payment on February 13, 2025.

 

On February 13, 2025, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lockheed-martins.net> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II 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 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 6, 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@lockheed-martins.net. Also on February 14, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 6, 2025.

 

On March 6, 2025,  pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Carol Stoner, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name <lockheed-martins.net> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant's Contentions

Complainant contends that Lockheed Martin is the world's largest defense contractor and global security and aerospace company, employing approximately 116,000 people worldwide. Lockheed is primarily engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products, and services: and

 

That Lockheed Martin maintains over 450 facilities in all fifty states throughout the United States. In 2017, Lockheed's sales exceeded $51 billion. Lockheed Martin's origins date back over a century. By the end of the 1920s, Lockheed Aircraft Company was supplying aircraft to the U.S. military. In 1995, Martin Marietta and Lockheed Corporation combined their operations, becoming one of the largest aerospace, defense, and technology companies in the world, reflecting nearly a century of aerospace innovation; and

 

That over the years, Lockheed Martin and its heritage companies have been involved with many of the most famous and iconic moments in aviation history, including historic flights by Charles Lindberg and Amelia Earhart in Lockheed Martin aircraft.  Lockheed Martin and its heritage companies have designed and built parts of the Apollo spacecraft, which landed the first man on the moon in 1969. In 1976, Martin Marietta and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation helped to make Mars exploration possible and is now building spacecraft which will eventually carry astronauts on space missions, including to Mars; and that, today, the majority of Lockheed Martin'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.

 

Complainant's states that its domain name was created and registered on October 12, 1996 and its associated website and social media have advertised Lockheed Martin's products and services ever since.

 

And that Complainant owns the federally registered trademarks LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED MARTIN and has exclusive rights to use those marks in connection with a wide variety of goods and services related to aerospace, aeronautics, electronic systems, energy, integrated systems and solutions, and space systems.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent's domain name of <lockheed-martins.net> fully incorporates, and is confusingly similar to, Complainant's common-law and registered LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED MARTIN trademarks ("the LOCKHEED MARTIN Marks").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent does not have any rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name of <lockheed-martins.net> because it trades on the goodwill of Complainant's LOCKHEED MARTIN Marks and Respondent is not commonly known by this Domain Name. And further, Respondent is not, and has never been, licensed and/or otherwise authorized by Complainant to use the LOCKHEED MARTIN Marks.

 

Lastly, Complainant contends that Respondent's registration and use of the Domain Name <lockheed-martins.net> constitutes bad faith pursuant to Section 4(b) of the UDRP.

 

B. Respondent's Contentions

Respondent alleges that the following allegations against it are false:

that it unlawfully registered the domain name <lockheed-martins.net> due to its significant similarity to the Complainant's registered trademark; that it registered the domain name of <lockheed-martins.net> in bad faith; and that the domain name of <lockheed-martins.net> lacked legitimate use.

 

Respondent alleges that the domain registration was lawful and part of a personal educational project. Further, the domain represents an acronym for a personal medical-educational project by the defendant.

 

That there is no exact match or confusion between the domain and the plaintiff's trademark. That the word "Martins" is a commonly used name across various industries unrelated to military manufacturing.

 

Respondent alleges that it has developed a medical software application to be used on Mac, Linux, and mobile operating systems. This application, named ViScan, assists in medical diagnostics through image processing, iris scanning, facial recognition, personality analysis, medical report interpretation, blood test analysis, and radiology data assessment.

 

Respondent alleges that under legal principles, a trademark owner cannot prohibit others from using a similar name, if they are engaged in a different trade or service.

 

Respondent alleges that the domain name was not registered in bad faith. That is, domain was not registered with intent to resell it. Respondent alleges that there is no evidence to support exploitation of the plaintiff's name or to damage its reputation. Respondent alleges that there was no misleading use that could cause consumer confusion.

 

         Respondent alleges that it has legitimate rights to the disputed domain                          

         name.

 

Respondent alleges that it did not use the disputed domain name for activities related to Complainant's military industry.

 

Respondent alleges that it used the domain for various personal services, including medical applications, education, training courses, and selling art and antiques, which does not lead to confusion among Complainant's clients.

 

Respondent alleges that it has a legitimate right to use a name that includes "Martins," a generic term not restricted to a single company.

Respondent's website currently displays a "Coming Soon" page, clearly indicating that the site is under development and will be used for a lawful purpose in the future. Respondent alleges that there is no evidence of bad faith, in that domain was not registered with the purpose to resell it, or to mislead consumers or to suggest an affiliation with the plaintiff or tis trademark and there is no bad faith intent to disrupt Complainant's business.

 

Respondent alleges Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on the part of Complainant by its taking over a legally registered domain.  Respondent requests Dismissal of the Complaint and condemnation of Plaintiff's abusive use of UDRP's Policy. Respondent further requests retention of the domain name of <lockheed-martins.net>.

 

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant's Additional Submission

Complainant, Lockheed Martin Corporation, presents the following Additional Submission, under Forum Supplemental Rule 7.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent fails to show the domain name is not confusingly similar to Lockheed Martin's trademarks. The Policy does not require a domain name to be identical to a complainant's trademark. Rather, the test is whether the disputed domain name is "confusingly similar" to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. Accordingly, the addition of hyphens, additional letters (including the letter "s"), and generic top-level domains such as ".net" do not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar to an asserted trademark. Further, whether the Domain Name explicitly refers to Complainant's industries or services is irrelevant.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent provides no evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Rather, Respondent appears to argue that he has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because: (1) "[t]he domain <lockheed-martins.net> was registered lawfully with no objections from the domain registration authority, making the registration valid, legal, and compliant with all applicable policies"; and (2) Respondent is engaged in a different trade or service

than Complainant. Not so. First, UDRP decisions are clear that mere registration confers no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for purposes of the Policy.

 

Secondly, Complainant states that Respondent does not dispute that the Domain Name does not currently show any content related to Respondent's purported products or services but instead is currently inactive / parked. The only evidence Respondent points to supporting his claim is (1) his own self-serving (and far-fetched) assertion that "lockheed martins" is an acronym for his medical products and services, and (2) a .pdf document that shows a screenshot of the Domain Name's parked website, followed by a series of foreign language screenshots that do not appear to reference the Domain Name or have any relation to it.

 

Where there has been no actual use of the Domain Name, paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy calls for 'demonstrable preparations to use' the Domain Name. Nothing that the Respondent has produced to the Panel has made any reference to the Domain Name.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent makes mere conclusory assertions regarding his lack of bad faith and intended use of the Domain Name. Here, Respondent offers no evidence refuting the facts that (1) Complainant's LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED MARTIN marks are inherently distinctive and famous, (2) Complainant's rights in the LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED MARTIN marks are worldwide, and (3) Complainant's LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED MARTIN marks are afforded a broad scope of protection. Moreover, Complainant cites that Respondent does not dispute that he knew of the LOCKHEED MARTIN marks prior to registering the Domain Name.

 

Complainant alleges that a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is appropriate only in cases where the Complainant knew, or should have known, that it could not meet one of the UDRP elements. Such a finding would be inappropriate here because Complaint has set forth well-supported arguments and evidence showing that Lockheed Martin has satisfied each of the three required elements: 1) Complainant owns multiple federal trademark registrations for its LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED MARTIN marks (and significant common-law rights), and the domain name incorporates the LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED MARTIN marks respectively in their entirety; 2) Respondent's use of the domain name for a parked or inactive website does not constitute a legitimate use of the domain name, and Respondent was not known by the domain name prior to registration; and 3) In addition to using the domain name for a parked or inactive site, Respondent has engaged in typo-squatting.

 

Respondent's Additional Submissions

Respondent presents the following Additional Submissions, under Forum Supplemental Rule 7.

 

-        Statement that ViScan is an innovative medical platform that combines advanced technology with traditional medicine to provide comprehensive health analyses through four core pillars: face analysis, palm analysis, iris analysis, and medical report analysis.

-       Diagrams and Visualizations for ViScan Project.

-       ViScan Project - Detailed Feasibility Study Market Analysis.

-       Final Part of the Detailed Feasibility Study for ViScan Project - Human Resources Strategy.

 

-       Respondent screenshot of domain name of <lockheed-martins.net> and phrase of, "We're under construction. Please check back for an update soon."

-       Forum screenshot of Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Mohammed Alohaydib.

 

FINDINGS

1.       The domain name <lockheed-martins.net> 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 <lockheed-martins.net>; and

3.       The domain name <lockheed-martins.net> has been registered and is 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Panel has reviewed all of Complainant's Exhibits, including Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9, which evidences that Complainant owns numerous trademarks and service marks, which are registered on both the national and the international level.

 

The relevant trademarks for purposes of this Complaint are LOCKHEED, Trademark No. 2,627,156, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on October 1, 2002; and LOCKHEED MARTIN Trademark, No. 2,022,037 registered with the USPTO on December 10, 1996.

 

Panel rules that these incontestable registrations for Complainant's  LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED MARTIN marks on the Principal Register constitute conclusive evidence of the validity of the LOCKHEED MARTIN marks and Complainant's exclusive rights to use the LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED MARTIN marks throughout the United States. 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b).

 

This Panel rules that Registration with the United States Patent and Trademark ("USPTO") suffices to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 12818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTTV demonstrates its right in such mark for the purposes of

¶4(a)(i)"). Therefore, this Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the abovecited LOCKHEED and Lockheed Martin marks under Policy ¶4(a)(i)").

 

As the addition of a generic top-level domain name (e.g., .com, .net, or .org, etc.) or the plural "s" to the subject domain name fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark per Policy ¶(a)(i), Respondent's addition of "s" to Martin and ".net" to its domain name does not negate that Respondent's domain name is identical to Complainant's LOCKHEED and Lockheed Martin marks. That is, this "typo-squatting" ploy is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between Respondent's domain name of <lockheed-martins.net> and Complainant's LOCKHEED and Lockheed Martin Marks. Therefore,  the <lockheed-martins.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. See Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA0153545 (Forum May 27, 2003) ("the addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar because top level domains are a required element of every domain name").

 

In conclusion, Panel rules that, in accordance with UDRP Policy ¶4(a)(i), that the domain name of <lockheed-martins.net> is confusingly similar to Complainant's LOCKHEED and Lockheed Martin trademarks and is therefore, likely to cause confusion as to Respondent's affiliation with Complainant.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interest in the disputed domain name under Policy

¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp., FA 7680200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding

that a Complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶49a)(ii); see also Neal and Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.").

 

Respondent has produced no credible evidence that Respondent has any rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name of <lockheed-martins.net>. According to WHOIS, Respondent is not commonly known by this Domain Name. Furthermore, Complainant has never licensed and/or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the LOCKHEED MARTIN Marks.

 

Respondent has put forth no evidence that it has any right to own or to use a domain name which incorporates Complainant's suite of LOCKHEED and Lockheed Martin marks. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the Complainant alleged in its Complaint, that it did not authorize the Respondent to use the mark).

 

The totality of Complainant's evidence, as described above, constitutes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in

the disputed domain name of <lockheed-martins.net>, under Policy 4(a)(ii). Panel therefore concludes, that Respondent has not shouldered its shifted burden to show that Respondent, does indeed, have rights or legitimate interests, so as to satisfy the tenets of Policy ¶4(c)(i).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant has propounded credible evidence that Respondent has registered and has used the domain name of <lockheed-martins.net> in bad faith.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 31, 2024, over twenty years subsequent to Complainant's registration of trademark LOCKHEED on October 1, 2002 and nearly thirty years subsequent to Complainant's registration of trademark Lockheed Martin on December 10, 1996. Complainant registered domain name <lockheedmartin.com> on October 12, 1996.

 

Therefore, Complainant's trademark rights, and common law rights acquired through use of the marks, substantially pre-date Respondent's registration of the domain name <lockheed-martins.net> on July 31, 2024.

 

Panel rules that, as the disputed domain is a mere facsimile of the famous mark of Lockheed Martin, with veneer variations of an added hyphen between Lockheed and Martin; the addition of an "s" to Martin; and the substitution of .net for.com; Respondent registered the disputed domain, with the intention to cause confusion with the world-famous Lockheed Martin marks. This "fun-mirror" variation of a famous mark, 

achieved through typographical hijinks, is called "typo squatting" and constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Zhichao / Zhichao Yang, Case No. FA 1919933 (Forum Dec. 14, 2020) ("Next, as discussed above, Respondent is guilty of typo squatting. Given the non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b), typo squatting has, in and of itself, been held to be evidence of bad faith registration and use.").

 

         This Panel rules that Respondent's registration of the domain name of

         <lockheed-martins.net> constitutes typo squatting and is thus

         engagement in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Respondent's non-usage of the disputed Domain Name also constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because the Domain Name is currently parked or inactive. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Admin Officer, Case No. FA 1859570 (Forum Sept. 19, 2019) ("Complainant also asserts that Respondent's failure to use the domain name is evidence of its bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

Further, Respondent shows no "demonstrable usage" of its disputed domain, as is required by ¶ 4(c)(i) of the Policy. Here, his domain is only utilized in a "parked" website that states: "lockheed-martins.net. We are under construction. Please check back for an update soon."

 

Thus, Respondent failed to provide any actual, or even contemplated, evidence of good-faith use. While Respondent's Additional Submissions appear to be a business plan, they contained no concrete information. For example, its five-year-plan was not even instigated with the starting date of year one.

 

Thus, Panel is afforded no platform from which to construct

any good faith use to which Respondent's disputed domain name may be utilized, other than to imply an affiliation with LOCKHEED, a world class manufacturer of high-tech optical and other devices. Panel notes that LOCKHEED MARTIN's trademark, Registration No. 2,788,896, registered on December 02, 2003 is registered for such goods as "seekers, radar, sensors, and detectors" which are logically related to Respondent's purported service of ViScan, an optical device for disease detection.

 

As a purported purveyor of optical devices for disease detection, Respondent's ViScan's selection of LOCKHEED domain name was obviously aimed at seeking an association with a famous manufacturer of high technology optical and (and other) devices. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Stephen Wilson, Case No. FA 2004766 (Forum Aug. 16, 2022) ("In the present case Complainant's LOCKHEED MARTIN mark is one of the most famous marks in the world . . . .").

 

Accordingly, Panel has concluded that Respondent has registered the domain name of <lockheed-martins.net> in bad faith. Further, Respondent has also demonstrated bad faith through both non-usage and no "demonstrable usage" of its domain name of <lockheed-martins.net>.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Respondent has alleged that Complainant has engaged in the process of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH).

 

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is described in the UDRP Policy as a mechanism,  whereby a Complainant seeks to capture a disputed domain name, via filing a UDRP Complaint, while simultaneously possessing knowledge that said Complainant could not meet all three of the necessary UDRP elements, in order to legally secure transfer of the disputed domain name.

 

Here, Panel rules that the Complainant has set forth sufficient and credible evidence in full satisfaction of the three UDRP elements. That is, Respondent's domain name of <lockheed-martins.net> is confusingly similar to Complainant's federally filed trademarks, in that Respondent's domain name has incorporated Complainant's marks of LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED Martin, in their entirety,  into Respondent's domain name. Secondly, Respondent has not evidenced any actual rights to, or use of, its parked domain name of <lockheed-martins.net>. And lastly, that Respondent has engaged in such bad faith practices as typo-squatting.

 

           Therefore, based upon an assessment of the evidence presented by    

           both parties, Panel rules that Complainant has not engaged in Reverse            

           Domain Name Hijacking.

 

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-martins.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Carol Stoner, Esq., Panelist

Dated: March 21, 2025