Leidos, Inc. v. Shirley T. Barnes / malca-mit
Claim Number: FA2012001923791
Complainant is Leidos, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kandis M. Koustenis of Bean, Kinney & Korman P.C., Virginia, USA Respondent is Shirley T. Barnes / malca-mit (“Respondent”), Michigan, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <leidos-us.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 December 4, 2020; the Forum received payment on December 4, 2020.
On December 8, 2020, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <leidos-us.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 December 14, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 4, 2021 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@leidos-us.com. Also on December 14, 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 January 7, 2021, 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it has offered goods and services under the LEIDOS mark since September 27, 2013 and now offers such services and related goods and services under the mark LEIDOS across a variety of industry sectors. Complainant has rights in the LEIDOS mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 2018.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its LEIDOS mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen and the geographic term “us” (short for “United States”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the LEIDOS mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has displayed a pattern of bad faith domain name registrations. Additionally, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of phishing. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the LEIDOS mark prior to registering the disputed domain name based on Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the mark LEIDOS dating back to at least 2018 and uses it to provide a variety of goods and services.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2020.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent is using the disputed domain in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme; the signature block of the fraudulent emails displays Complainant’s mark and legitimate business address. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names.
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 LEIDOS mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen and the geographic term “us”. The addition of a hyphen and a geographic term to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. SNAB Corporation, FA 1785051 (Forum May 30, 2018) (finding the inclusion of a geographic term did not distinguish the domain name and increased possible confusion, as “[t]he geographic term “hyderabad” is also suggestive of Complainant as Complainant has corporate offices in Hyderabad, India.”); see also Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. XINXIU ZENG / haimin liang, FA 1736365 (Forum July 19, 2017) (finding that the addition of punctuation—specifically, a hyphen—did not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from complainant’s registered mark). Therefore, the 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: when a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record lists the registrant as “Shirley T. Barnes / malca-mit”. 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 in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Specifically, Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to establish e-mail addresses similar to Complainant’s in order to “phish” for information and defraud Complainant, its business partners, and the general public; Respondent’s attempts to defraud include sending bogus invoices and requesting monetary payments from third parties including Complainant’s actual customers. Using a confusingly similar domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a 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 did 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 name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of a fraudulent phishing scheme. This is indicative of bad faith registration and use. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Kalra, FA 1650447 (Forum Dec. 31, 2015); see also National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Craig Wood/NOV, FA 1575951 (Forum Sept. 22, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent fraudulently attempted to induce wire transfers by sending e-mails purporting to be from complainant’s President and CEO); see also Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank v. Austin Howel, FA 289304 (Forum Aug. 11, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent used complainant’s mark to fraudulently induce transfer of credit and personal identification information); see also Airbnb, Inc. v. James Grant, FA 1760182 (Forum Dec. 28, 2017) (“Using a misleading e-mail address to defraud unwary customers certainly constitutes bad faith”); see also Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Consequently, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of the Policy.
Further, Respondent has a pattern of bad faith domain name registrations: Complainant provides citations to prior UDRP decisions in which Respondent was found to have registered and used disputed domain names in bad faith. This is sufficient to find bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA2001001878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the signature block of the fraudulent emails displays Complainant’s mark and legitimate business address. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <leidos-us.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: January 8, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page