DECISION

 

Leidos, Inc. v. [Redacted]

Claim Number: FA2602002204930

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Leidos, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Kandis M. Koustenis of Bean Kinney & Korman, PC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is [Redacted] ("Respondent"), New York, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ukleidos.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 11, 2026; Forum received payment on February 11, 2026.

 

On February 12, 2026, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ukleidos.com> 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 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 5, 2026 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@ukleidos.com. Also on February 13, 2026, 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, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: REDACTION OF REGISTRANT INFORMATION

Forum received an email from the named Respondent denying that the named Respondent or associated entity registered the Domain Name. The Panel finds this denial credible and will redact the named Respondent's information from this Decision pursuant to Forum Supplemental Rule 15(b).

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant is the owner of the mark LEIDOS registered, inter alia, in the USA for aircraft, computer and management consultancy related services since 2016. It owns leidos.com. The mark is well known in its field.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2026 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark adding only the generic term 'uk' and the gTLD .com which do not prevent said confusing similarity.

 

The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.

 

The Domain Name has not been used so there is no bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial fair use.

 

Passive use of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation is registration and use in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the mark LEIDOS registered, inter alia, in the USA for aircraft, computer, and management consultancy  related services since 2016. It owns <leidos.com>. It is well known in its field.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2026 has not been used.

 

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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's LEIDOS mark (registered in the USA for aircraft, computer, and management consultancy services since 2016), adding only the generic term 'uk' and the gTLD .com. 

 

Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term 'uk' to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's registered trade mark.

 

The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

There has been no use of the Domain Name. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (where the panel found inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i)).

 

The Respondent has not provided a Response to this Complaint and has not rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Domain Name has not been used. Passive holding of a Domain Name containing a trade mark that is well known in its field does not prevent a finding of registration and use in bad faith under the Policy. See Indiana University v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA 1588079 (Forum Dec. 28, 2014) ("Under the circumstances, Respondent's seemingly inutile holding of the at-issue domain name shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith under Policy 4(b)(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 <ukleidos.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: March 6, 2026