DECISION

 

Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. v. Martin McCormick

Claim Number: FA2603002210345

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Barry F. Soalt and Neil A. Salyards of Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves and Savitch LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Martin McCormick ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <open.space> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Spaceship, Inc.

 

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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 18, 2026; Forum received payment on March 18, 2026.

 

On March 20, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <open.space> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, Inc. 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 March 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 10, 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@open.space. Also on March 21, 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.

 

On April 4, 2026, Respondent filed a timely Response to the Complaint.

 

On April 6, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it is an industry leader in the design and development of communications, technology, satellite, space, and aerospace goods and services within the military and defense industry, serving national security related clients and commercial enterprises. Complainant owns U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 6,577,000 for the mark OPENSPACE, registered November 30, 2021 (first use October 31, 2020), and U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 6,859,812 for the mark KRATOS OPENSPACE, registered September 27, 2022 (first use July 11, 2022), both in International Classes 9 and 42 covering satellite, space, and aerospace ground station software and hardware (collectively, the "OPENSPACE Marks").

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <open.space> is confusingly similar to Complainant's OPENSPACE Marks because it incorporates Complainant's OPENSPACE mark in its entirety. The only difference is the inclusion of a period between "open" and "space." The mere inclusion of punctuation is not sufficient to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's OPENSPACE Marks.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Nothing in Respondent's WHOIS information demonstrates that Respondent is commonly known by the name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its OPENSPACE mark. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name through a privacy service. Complainant alleges that since registration of the Disputed Domain Name on June 27, 2025, Respondent has made no good faith use of the Disputed Domain Name and has displayed Complainant's OPENSPACE mark on the associated website without authorization, in connection with space communications equipment that is related to and/or directly competitive with Complainant's goods and services.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by intentionally attracting Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's OPENSPACE Marks. Complainant further alleges that Respondent's use of a privacy service raises a rebuttable presumption of bad faith, and that Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name nearly five years after Complainant adopted and secured trademark registrations for its OPENSPACE Marks demonstrates that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent contends:

 

That while the phrase "open space" shares textual similarities with Complainant's registered OPENSPACE mark, the terms "open" and "space" are two generic, descriptive English dictionary words. Respondent selected the .space top-level domain and the word "open" to accurately describe the mission of the project: providing open-source hardware to allow the public to explore space communications.

 

That Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Respondent states that, as expressly shown in Complainant's own Annex 6 screenshots, the Disputed Domain Name actively hosts an open-source communications hardware and software initiative targeting the amateur ("ham") radio community. Respondent has undertaken complex RF engineering, including development of a software-defined radio tile ("Quad") and Lattice ECP5 FPGA integration, designed to bring Earth-Moon-Earth (EME) communication to the amateur sector. The website details specific physical hardware configurations slated for shipment. Respondent contends that Complainant operates in the defense and government satellite sector, whereas Respondent operates an open-source project for civilian hobbyists building DIY phased arrays, and there is no overlap in target audience.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name was not registered and is not being used in bad faith. Respondent is not a defense contractor, does not sell enterprise satellite tracking software, and does not compete with Complainant. The domain was registered because it is a literal description of an open-source project exploring space communications, not to target Complainant or its trademark. Respondent further contends that the use of WHOIS privacy protection is a standard registrar default offered by Spaceship, Inc. and does not, by itself, equate to bad faith. Respondent notes that the parties have been engaged in good-faith settlement discussions, though no agreement was finalized.  

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Complainant owns registered trademarks for the OPENSPACE mark in the United States, including U.S. Reg. No. 6,577,000 for the word mark OPENSPACE (registered November 30, 2021, in International Classes 9 and 42, with a first use date of October 31, 2020) and U.S. Reg. No. 6,859,812 for the mark KRATOS OPENSPACE (registered September 27, 2022, in International Classes 9 and 42, with a first use date of July 11, 2022). Both registrations cover computer hardware, software, and services related to satellite, space, and aerospace ground station operations.

 

Complainant is an industry leader in the design and development of communications, technology, satellite, space, and aerospace goods and services within the military and defense industry. Complainant markets its OpenSpace product line through its website at <kratosspace.com> as part of its suite of software-defined mission-critical ground systems for enterprise and government customers.

 

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <open.space> on June 27, 2025. The WHOIS information for the Disputed Domain Name listed the registrant organization as "Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf"; through the registrar verification process, Spaceship, Inc. identified the underlying registrant as Martin McCormick of Studio City, California.

 

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to an active website titled "Open Source meets Outer Space," described as "an open-source communications hardware & software initiative empowering the public to connect across the world by bouncing signals off the Moon—and more!" The website is directed at the amateur ("ham") radio community and features detailed technical specifications for three hardware products: (1) the "Quad," a 4-antenna software-defined radio tile operating in the C-band (4.9–6.0 GHz) frequency range, priced at $49–99; (2) the "Mini," a starter phased array composed of 18 Quad tiles (72 antennas), priced at $899–$1,499; and (3) the "Moon," a high-aperture phased array composed of 60 Quad tiles (240 antennas) designed for Earth-Moon-Earth (EME) experiments and radio astronomy, priced at $2,499–$4,999. Each product requires an amateur radio license (Technician class or higher) to operate. The website includes a disclaimer that the hardware is "[n]ot intended for radar applications" and notes that "[c]ore functionality needed for radar not included due to export control restrictions." This evidence is drawn from Complainant's own Annex 6.

 

The Panel considers that the record presents a case in which Complainant holds registered trademark rights in a mark composed of two common English dictionary words—"open" and "space"—and Respondent has registered a domain name combining those same common words for an active, facially legitimate project addressing an entirely different market segment.

 

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.

 

Respondent has filed a Response in this proceeding. Accordingly, the Panel has considered the submissions and evidence of both parties in reaching its decision.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the OPENSPACE mark through U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 6,577,000 (registered November 30, 2021) and the KRATOS OPENSPACE mark through U.S. Reg. No. 6,859,812 (registered September 27, 2022), both on the Principal Register.

 

The Disputed Domain Name <open.space> consists of the second-level domain "open" combined with the generic top-level domain ".space." Under the UDRP, the TLD is ordinarily disregarded when assessing confusing similarity. However, where the applicable TLD corresponds to or forms part of the complainant's mark, the TLD may be taken into account. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.11.1. Here, the TLD ".space" reproduces the second component of Complainant's OPENSPACE mark. When read together, "open" + ".space" effectively reproduces the OPENSPACE mark in its entirety. The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's OPENSPACE mark.

 

The Panel emphasizes, however, that the test under the first element of the Policy is a threshold standing requirement. A finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not, in itself, resolve the question of whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests or whether the domain was registered in bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.7. This is particularly so where, as here, the mark in question is composed entirely of common, generic English dictionary words.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's OPENSPACE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, after which the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 2.1.

 

Complainant's prima facie case rests on its assertions that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, has not been authorized to use the OPENSPACE mark, registered the domain through a privacy service, and has used the OPENSPACE mark on the website in connection with goods that are "related to, and/or directly competitive with" Complainant's goods and services. The Panel accepts that Complainant has made a prima facie showing sufficient to shift the burden to Respondent.

 

Respondent, however, has rebutted that showing. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), a respondent demonstrates rights or legitimate interests where, before any notice of the dispute, it used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), a respondent demonstrates rights or legitimate interests where it is 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 at issue.

 

The evidence before the Panel—drawn principally from Complainant's own Annex 6—establishes that the Disputed Domain Name <open.space> resolves to an active website hosting a genuine open-source hardware and software initiative directed at the amateur radio community. The website offers detailed technical specifications for three distinct hardware products (the Quad software-defined radio tile, the Mini phased array, and the Moon phased array), each with specific pricing, performance specifications, frequency parameters, and power requirements. The hardware is designed for Earth-Moon-Earth (EME or "moonbounce") communication—a well-known and longstanding pursuit within the amateur radio community—and requires an amateur radio license to operate. The website includes photographs of physical circuit boards under development and lists an expected ship date. This is not a passive or nominal use; it is an active, substantive project with tangible hardware in development.

 

The Panel further notes that the terms "open" and "space" are common, generic English dictionary words. The combination "open.space" is descriptively apt for a project that is "open" (i.e., open-source) and relates to "space" (i.e., space communications). The website's tagline, "Open Source meets Outer Space," confirms this descriptive intent. Where a respondent registers a domain name consisting of common dictionary words for a purpose consistent with their ordinary meaning, that is strong evidence of a legitimate interest. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 2.10.1.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent's goods are "related to, and/or directly competitive with" Complainant's goods. The Panel rejects this contention. Complainant's OPENSPACE product is an enterprise-grade, software-defined satellite ground station operations platform marketed to defense contractors and commercial satellite operators. Conversely, Respondent's project offers low-cost, open-source phased array hardware for amateur radio hobbyists pursuing moonbounce communication. The target audiences are entirely different: Complainant serves government and commercial satellite operators; Respondent serves individual amateur radio enthusiasts holding FCC Technician-class licenses or above. The price points ($49–$4,999 versus enterprise-level procurement), distribution channels, and use cases bear no meaningful overlap. A consumer searching for Complainant's defense-grade satellite ground station software would not be misled by a website offering DIY phased array kits for ham radio operators, and vice versa.

 

Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name through a privacy service and that this demonstrates Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests. The Panel observes that Spaceship, Inc., the registrar of record, enables WHOIS privacy protection by default. The use of a standard registrar-provided privacy service by an individual developer to protect personal contact information does not negate an otherwise demonstrated legitimate interest.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has demonstrated rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name through its bona fide use of the domain in connection with an active open-source hardware initiative under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), and through its legitimate noncommercial or fair use of two common dictionary words to describe an open-source space communications project under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Complainant has failed to establish the second element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Although the Panel has already determined that Complainant has not satisfied the second element of the Policy—which is alone sufficient to deny the Complaint—the Panel addresses the third element for completeness.

 

Complainant bears the burden of proving both that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith and that Respondent is using it in bad faith. Both registration and use in bad faith must be established. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 3.1.

 

Complainant's principal argument under this element is that Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Name to "intentionally attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's OPENSPACE Marks," within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). This argument does not withstand scrutiny on the present record.

 

There is no evidence that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with Complainant's OPENSPACE mark in mind, or with the intent to trade on Complainant's goodwill. The Disputed Domain Name is composed of two common English dictionary words. The domain was registered in the .space TLD—a natural choice for any project related to space communications—and the second-level domain "open" accurately describes the open-source nature of the project. The evidence before the Panel shows that Respondent selected the Disputed Domain Name for its descriptive value, not to target Complainant's trademark.

 

The content of Respondent's website reinforces this conclusion. The website makes no reference to Complainant, Complainant's products, or Complainant's OPENSPACE mark. There are no links to Complainant's website, no competing product offerings, and no suggestion of any affiliation with or endorsement by Complainant. The website is devoted entirely to an amateur radio hardware project in a market segment that does not overlap with Complainant's business.

 

Complainant's reliance on Respondent's use of a WHOIS privacy service as evidence of bad faith is unpersuasive in context. As noted above, Spaceship, Inc. enables privacy protection by default. Where, as here, the underlying registrant has been identified through the registrar verification process, and the domain is being used for a facially legitimate project, the mere use of a standard privacy service does not support an inference of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 3.6.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has not established that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Rule 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if "after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding." Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is defined in Rule 1 as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name."

 

Respondent has not expressly requested a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The Panel may, however, make such a finding on its own initiative where the record warrants it. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 4.16.

 

The Panel considers that such a finding is warranted here, for the following reasons.

 

First, Complainant's own evidence refuted its own allegations. Complainant asserted in the Complaint that "since registration of the Domain Name on June 27, 2025, Respondent has made no good faith use of the Domain Name." Yet Complainant's own Annex 6—the screenshots of Respondent's website captured and submitted by Complainant—plainly demonstrates that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an active, substantive website hosting an open-source hardware initiative for amateur radio operators. The website displays detailed product specifications, photographs of physical hardware, pricing, and an expected ship date. A complainant represented by experienced trademark counsel should be expected to review its own exhibits before making allegations that are directly contradicted by those exhibits.

 

Second, Complainant characterised Respondent's website as displaying "Complainant's OPENSPACE Mark . . . without authorization, and in connection with space communications equipment, which is related to, and/or directly competitive with, Complainant's goods and services." This characterisation is misleading. Respondent's website uses the words "Open" and "Space" descriptively as the name of its own project—"Open Source meets Outer Space"—not as a reference to Complainant's trademark. The website offers DIY phased array kits for amateur radio hobbyists, not enterprise satellite ground station software. Describing these products as "related to, and/or directly competitive with" Complainant's multi-million-dollar defense and satellite offerings is a substantial overstatement of the overlap between the parties' respective activities bordering on the absurd.

 

Third, Complainant's OPENSPACE mark is composed entirely of two common English dictionary words. While Complainant is entitled to enforce its registered trademark against confusingly similar uses within its field of goods and services, it cannot reasonably claim exclusive rights over the combination of the words "open" and "space" in connection with all space-related activities. Complainant's attempt to wrest a domain composed of generic dictionary words from a registrant with a demonstrably legitimate project in an unrelated market—on the basis of evidence that Complainant itself submitted and that contradicts the Complaint's own allegations—falls below the standard of good faith expected of parties invoking the Policy.  It is, as Respondent asserts, "a textbook case of trademark overreach".

 

The Panel accordingly finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking within the meaning of Rule 15(e).

 

DECISION

Complainant has established the first element of the Policy (confusing similarity) but has failed to establish the second element (that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests) and the third element (bad faith registration and use). Because Complainant must prove all three elements to prevail, and has failed to do so, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

The Panel further finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <open.space> domain name shall REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: April 7, 2026