DECISION

 

Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Nynrynn Julia

Claim Number: FA2502002140989

PARTIES

Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Nynrynn Julia ("Respondent"), Norway.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <locckheedmartin.com>, <locjheedmartin.com>, <locjkheedmartin.com>, <lockgheedmartin.com>, <lockhheedmartin.com>, <lockjheedmartin.com>, <locklheedmartin.com>, <loclheedmartin.com>, <loclkheedmartin.com>, <locvkheedmartin.com>, <locxkheedmartin.com>, <lokheedmartin.com>, <loxckheedmartin.com> and <loxkheedmartin.com>, ("Disputed Domain Names") registered with NameCheap, Inc. ("Registrar").

 

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.

 

Debrett G Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 19, 2025; Forum received payment on February 19, 2025.

 

On February 20, 2025, the Registrar confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the Disputed Domain Names are registered with it and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. The Registrar has verified that Respondent is bound by its 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 20, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 12, 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@locckheedmartin.com, postmaster@locjheedmartin.com, postmaster@locjkheedmartin.com, postmaster@lockgheedmartin.com, postmaster@lockhheedmartin.com, postmaster@lockjheedmartin.com, postmaster@locklheedmartin.com, postmaster@loclheedmartin.com, postmaster@loclkheedmartin.com, postmaster@locvkheedmartin.com, postmaster@locxkheedmartin.com, postmaster@lokheedmartin.com, postmaster@loxckheedmartin.com, postmaster@loxkheedmartin.com. Also on February 20, 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 13, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G Lyons 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 Disputed Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.       Complainant

Complainant is the world's largest defence contractor and a global security and aerospace company, employing approximately 116,000 people worldwide with over 450 facilities in all fifty states throughout the United States. It asserts that in 2017, sales exceeded USD 51 billion.

 

Complainant asserts trademark rights in LOCKHEED MARTIN since it holds national registrations for that trademark.  It also asserts common law rights in LOCKHEED MARTIN. Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to its trademark.  

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names.  Further, that Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith.  In particular, Respondent registered the Domain Names in December 2024, decades after Complainant established trademark rights. It states that the Disputed Domain Names are all typo-squatted variations on the trademark with subtle misspellings of the word "Lock."  Complainant submits that though none of the Disputed Domain Names resolves to an active website, there is a danger that such typo-squatted domain names could be used to send fraudulent phishing emails.

 

B.       Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant is a well-known aerospace company formed in 1995 by the merger of two other large companies in the same industry, one using the name LOCKHEED and the other the name MARTIN;

 

2.       Complainant owns United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 2,022,037, registered December 10, 1996, for the trademark, LOCKHEED MARTIN;

 

3.       the disputed domain names were all registered on December 24, 2024, but are not in use; and

 

4.       there is no commercial agreement between the parties and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating its trademark.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Moving on to the substantive issues, 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.  

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)).  Complainant therefore has rights since it provides proof of its registration of the trademark LOCKHEED MARTIN with the USPTO, a national trademark authority.

 

Further, and for the purposes of what is considered later, the Panel finds that LOCKHEED MARTIN enjoy the additional status of being a common law trademark. The evidence is that the name LOCKHEED MARTIN has been used extensively since 1995.

 

Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademark. For the purposes of comparison, the gTLD, ".com", can be disregarded. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are all confusingly similar to Complainant's LOCKHEED MARTIN mark because they simply remove the space between "Lockheed" and "Martin," and incorporate various misspellings of the element "Lock" in "Lockheed" (see, for example, Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs. Likewise, the absence of spaces must be disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax prohibits them."); Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA1804001782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) holding: "Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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."; Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Robin Mannall / White Horse Mach., FA2004001891515 (Forum May 5, 2020) ("The disputed [<lockheedmartyn.com>] domain name contains Complainant's mark in its entirety, merely replacing the letter 'i' with the letter 'y' and adding the '.com' gTLD.").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i)                      before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)                      you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)                      you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).

 

The domain name owner's name was concealed from the public but in consequence of these proceedings the name of the underlying owner, Nynrynn Julia, was disclosed. That name does not carry any suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by any of the Disputed Domain Names. Further, Complainant asserts that it did not authorize Respondent to register or use its trademark, and that Respondent is not affiliated with, associated with, or otherwise endorsed by Complainant.

 

There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights. There has been no bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of any of the names. The evidence is that the names are not in use.

 

A prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) finding that the respondent's non-use of the disputed domain names demonstrates that the respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

The onus shifts to Respondent and, absence a Response, the Panel finds that Respondent has not discharged that onus and so finds the Respondent has no rights or interests. Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the Disputed Domain Names were registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.  

 

Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. 

 

The four specified circumstances are:

 

(i)                      circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.'

 

The Panel finds that none of those scenarios has obvious application to the facts of the case. Nevertheless, the Panel finds, as separate matters, registration and use in bad faith. The Panel already found that Complainant's trademark has acquired a reputation. It is more likely than not that Respondent was aware of the trademark at the time the domain names were registered – a conclusion supported by the concurrent creation of 14 names are with minor typographical variation on the well-known mark.  There is no explanation why Respondent might desire to register the Disputed Domain Names for bona fide reasons and so the Panel finds registration in bad faith.

 

Further, whilst there is no use of the Disputed Domain Names, the notoriety of the trademark and the lack of any plausible good faith way in which the names might be used by Respondent brings Respondent's conduct directly under the rubric of "passive holding" in bad faith as first enunciated in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 and followed in countless cases since. The Panel finds bad faith use in line with the reasoning set out in that case which applies with equal application here.

 

The Panel finds registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.

 

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 Disputed Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Debrett G Lyons, Panelist

Dated: March 16, 2025