DECISION

 

Lockheed Martin Corporation v. [redacted]

Claim Number: FA2502002140759

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.com>, <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.online>, <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.com> and <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.online>, registered with Network Solutions, 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 18, 2025; Forum received payment on February 18, 2025.

 

On February 19, 2025, Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.com>, <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.online>, <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.com> and <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.online> domain names are registered with Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, 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 19, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 11, 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@lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.com, postmaster@lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.online, postmaster@lockheedmartinmissilesystems.com, postmaster@lockheedmartinmissilesystems.online. Also on February 19, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 12, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY THEFT

Pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(j) all decisions under the Policy are to be published over the internet in-full except that a panel may determine, in exceptional cases, that portions of its decision be redacted.  Such an exceptional case appears to exist here as the nominal respondent has responded to the dispute resolution provider indicating, as more full set out below concerning Respondent's response, that its identity had been usurped by an unknown party who registered the domain name using the identified Respondent's name and email address. Since the nominal Respondent credibly claims that it is not the actual registrant of the at-issue domain name and since Complainant has not objected to the nominal Respondent's claims, the Panel finds that the nominal Respondent's identity should be redacted in the instant decision so that the such party will not be unfairly, falsely, and publically associated with any findings set out herein.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

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

 

Complainant owns the USPTO 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 also owns trademark registrations for the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark in countries on almost every continent in the world.

 

Complainant's use of the LOCKHEED MARTIN marks, pre-date Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain names by almost thirty years.

 

Respondent has attempted to conceal its identity by registering the domain name using a privacy service.

 

The at-issue domain names all resolve to pay-per-click websites showing links related to Complainant's services, such as: "NASA Space Shuttle," "Defense Contractors," and "Missile Systems."

 

Respondent's at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. The at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to Complainant's LOCKHEED MARTIN marks because they incorporate Complainant's LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED MARTIN marks in their entirety, only removing the space between "Lockheed" and "Martin," and adding the generic terms "missile and space systems" or "missile systems" and the non-distinguishing gTLDs ".com" or ".online." Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish any of the at-issue domain names from Complainant's LOCKHEED or LOCKHEED MARTIN marks, marks which are the distinctive components of such domain names.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain names. Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by any of the at-issue domain names. Nothing in the record demonstrates that Respondent is commonly known by any of the at-issue domain names and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant's LOCKHEED MARTIN marks. Respondent currently uses the at-issue domain names for pay-per-click websites that display links related to Complainant's business. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain names under the UDRP. Additionally, Respondent has attempted to conceal its identity using a privacy protection service, interfering with Complainant's efforts to investigate Respondent and the extent of its infringing activities.

 

Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain names constitute bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) because Respondent attempts to attract internet users for commercial gain by displaying pay-per-click webpages that show links related to Complainant's business. Respondent's registration and use of the domain names further constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because Respondent has displayed a pattern of abusive conduct, registering at least four domain names incorporating Complainant's trademarks. Respondent has also attempted to conceal its identity using a privacy-protection service, interfering with Complainant's efforts to investigate Respondent and the extent of its infringing activities. Given the fame of Complainant's trademarks, imagining any good faith use for which domain names incorporating Complainant's marks might be put is difficult, if not impossible. Additionally, Respondent undoubtedly knew of Complainant's rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN marks prior to registering the at-issue domain names. By registering the domain names with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN marks, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.  However, on February 26, 2025 Respondent sent Forum an email stating in full that:

 

Tried repeatedly to contact anyones about identity theft. You may or may not get this msg due to some type of malware. Over the last year I've received hundreds of notices of purchase I have not made and had my financial card holders investigate resulting in new cards being issued. On a daily basis my phone receives notifications of false use which I don't open and or block. This is my third iPhone multiple bank cards reissued. I have left a msg again on the 800 number. I'm requesting this communication to stop as I have no interest in any domain names.

 

I'm over 75 and would like to be free of bantering on this matter. Thanks W Sent from my iPhone

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark.

 

Complainant's rights in LOCKHEED MARTIN existed prior to Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.com>, <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.online>, <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.com> and <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.online> domain names to address websites hosting pay-per-click style links.

 

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

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows it has rights in its LOCKHEED MARTIN mark through Complainant's registration of LOCKHEED MARTIN with any of numerous trademark registrars worldwide including the USPTO. See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) ("Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world."); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jimmy Yau, FA 1764034 (Forum Jan. 25, 2018) ("The Panel finds that complainant has rights in BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO.").

 

Furthermore, the at-issue domain names each contain Complainant's entire LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark less its domain name impermissible space, followed by the various suggestive terms, with all followed by a confusingly similar analysis irrelevant top-level, either ".com" or ".online." The differences between <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.com>, <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.online>, <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.com> or <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.online> and Complainant's LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark are insufficient to distinguish any of such domain names from LOCKHEED MARTIN under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.com>, <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.online>, <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.com> and <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.online> are each confusingly similar to Complainant's LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018)("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also, Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).)

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of each at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of any at-issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain names identifies their nominal registrant as a person or entity other than the actual registrant of such domain names and there is no evidence in the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by any of the at-issue domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by any at-issue domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.com>, <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.online>, <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.com> and <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.online> to address websites hosting pay-per-click links. Indeed, such links include links to Complainant's competition. Respondent's use of each at-issue domain name is thus not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) ("Respondent's use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.").

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent's lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.com>, <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.online>, <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.com> and <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.online>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

First, Respondent is using its confusingly similar domain names to address websites displaying pay-per-click links. Using the domain names in such manner is disruptive to Complainant's business, takes unfair advantage of the confusion between the at-issue domain names and Complainant's trademark, and further indicates Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Vivint, Inc. v. Online Management, FA1403001549084 (Forum Apr. 23, 2014) (holding that the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page that featured no content besides sponsored advertisements and links).

 

Next, Respondent registered four confusingly similar domain names that are the subject of the instant dispute. In so doing, Respondent reveals a pattern of domain name abuse that suggests Respondent's bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Microsoft Corporation and Skype v. zhong biao zhang / Unknown company / zhong zhang, FA1401001538218 (Forum Feb. 20, 2014) (holding that the respondent's registration of three domain names incorporating variants of the complainant's SKYPE mark reflected a pattern of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark when it registered the at-issue domain names.  Respondent's actual knowledge is apparent from the mark's long term worldwide notoriety, as well as from Respondent's registration of multiple domain names containing Complainant's mark. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.com>, <lockheedmartinmissileandspacesystems.online>, <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.com> and <lockheedmartinmissilesystems.online> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: March 13, 2025