Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Chris Moore / JCI Group
Claim Number: FA2007001905033
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Chris Moore / JCI Group (“Respondent”), Wisconsin, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lmcogroup.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 20, 2020; the Forum received payment on July 20, 2020.
On July 21, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lmcogroup.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 July 21, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 10, 2020 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@lmcogroup.com. Also on July 21, 2020, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 11, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is the world’s largest defense contractor and a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 100,000 people worldwide. It is primarily engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. Complainant maintains over 590 facilities in all 50 states throughout the United States, as well as international business locations in 52 nations and territories. Complainant has rights in the LMCO mark through its registration in Canada in 1997.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LMCO mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “group” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (gTLD). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor is it authorized to use Complainant’s mark. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails that impersonate Complainant. The disputed domain name fails to resolve to an active webpage. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith in an attempt to confuse internet users by impersonating Complainant for commercial gain. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark LCMO and uses in connection with its security and aerospace business.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to at 1997.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2020.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails that impersonate Complainant for commercial gain.
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."
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”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “group” and the “.com” gTLD. Registration of a domain name that includes a mark in its entirety and a generic word along with a gTLD does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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)). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information can be used to determine if a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Here, the WHOIS information of record shows that the registrant is “Chris Moore”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails that impersonate Complainant for commercial gain. Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Passing off as a complainant through e-mails is evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”); see also Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Samantha Wilkinson, Case No. FA1807001795012 (Forum Aug. 1, 2018) (“The Domain Name has been used in a fraudulent e mail scheme using the LMCO name. This is deceptive and confusing and amounts to passing off. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services.”); see also Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Shirley T. Barnes / malca-mit, Case No. FA1703001723479 (Forum May 10, 2017) (“The Panel notes that Complainant included an email sent from Respondent falsely representing itself as ‘Morris Fillon’, a fictional employee of Complainant, to a third party. . . . As such, the Panel finds as a result of this evidence that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who has not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails that impersonate Complainant for commercial gain. This is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant’s CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”); see also Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Shirley T. Barnes / malca-mit, Case No. FA1703001723479 (Forum May 10, 2017) (“The Panel finds that Respondent acted in bad faith in registering and either using the domain name fraudulently to phish for goods and money or holding it passively as to any bona fide use; Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Giant Eagle/Giant Eagle Inc., Case No. FA1410001586562 (Forum Dec. 6, 2014) (“Complainant has shown that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to create an associated e-mail account and use that account to fraudulently impersonate Complainant’s Executive Vice President and place orders for computer equipment to be charged to Complainant’s account. There is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent relies on a domain name and associated e-mail in furtherance of fraud or illegal activity. . . . Respondent’s efforts to impersonate Complainant through fraudulent e-mails is indicative of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith”); see also National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Craig Wood / NOV, FA 1575951 (Forum Sept. 22, 2014) (“We are persuaded by the evidence that Respondent’s use of the <nov-inc.com> domain name to commit a commercial fraud while purporting to act in the name of Complainant, all as alleged in the Complaint, demonstrates bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name.”); see also Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Trey Andrews / lockheedmartinmd, Case No. FA1709001748885 (Forum Oct. 20, 2017) (“Respondent’s registration of a domain name obviously intended to create confusion with Complainant, together with its use of that domain name in connection with a fraudulent scheme involving email messages attempting to defraud Complainant or its vendors by exploiting that confusion, is indicative of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv).”); see also Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Sam Kadosh, Case No. FA1710001751762 (Forum Nov. 2, 2017) (“Use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant and send fraudulent emails demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lmcogroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: August 11, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page