Lockheed Martin Corporation v. UK2.Net / UK2.NET Renewals
Claim Number: FA2101001927662
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is UK2.Net / UK2.NET Renewals (“Respondent”), Great Britain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lockheed-martinusa.com>, registered with eNom, LLC.
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 January 8, 2021; the Forum received payment on January 8, 2021.
On January 11, 2021, eNom, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lockheed-martinusa.com> domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 January 12, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 1, 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@lockheed-martinusa.com. Also on January 12, 2021, 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 February 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 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’s origins date back over a century, to when aircraft pioneers Glenn L. Martin and the Loughead brothers—Allan and Malcolm—completed maiden voyages in their individual flying machines in 1909 and 1913 respectively. In 1912, the Glenn L. Martin Company officially incorporated. In 1917, after a brief partnership with the Wright Company, Glenn Martin reestablished the company in Ohio. In 1957, the company changed its name to The Martin Company, and in 1960, the Martin Company merged with American-Marietta Company to become Martin Marietta. In 1918, operating as “Loughead Aircraft Manufacturing Company,” the Loughead brothers made their first military sale of Curtiss HS-2L flying boats to the U.S. Navy. In 1920, the company and the brothers changed their names from “Loughead” to “Lockheed.” In 1926, the Lockheed Aircraft Company was formed. By the end of the 1920s, Lockheed Aircraft Company was supplying aircraft to the U.S. military. The company changed its name again in 1932 to Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, and again in 1977 to Lockheed Corporation. In 1995, Martin Marietta and Lockheed Corporation combined their operations. Over the years, Complainant and its heritage companies have been involved with many of the most famous and iconic moments in aviation history (e.g. flights by Charles and Anne Lindberg, Amelia Earhart, Howard Huges, space exploration). Today, the majority of Complainant’s business is with the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. federal government agencies, but its business also encompasses commercial, as well as international government sales of products, services, and platforms. Complainant has rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 1996.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LOCKHEED MARTIN mark as it fully incorporates the mark, merely adding a hyphen, the geographic term “usa”, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use its mark. Furthermore, Respondent’s use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent is merely hosting competing pay-per-click hyperlinks on the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage, such as such as “Military Contractor Jobs,” “Government Contract Jobs,” “Tactical Staff,” and “Contractor”. Additionally, Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease and desist letter. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain and disrupt Complainant’s business by hosting competing hyperlinks. Next, Respondent failed to respondent to Complainant’s demand letter. Finally, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark at the time of registration. 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 LOCKHEED MARTIN dating back to 1996 and uses it to offer a variety of products and services in the defense and aerospace industries.
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 name to resolve to a website that offers competing products and services.
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 fully incorporates Complainant’s mark and merely adds a hyphen, the geographic term “usa”, and the “.com” gTLD. Adding a hyphen, a geographic term and a gTLD to a complainant’s mark may not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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.”); see also ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) (“Respondent’s <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant’s ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD “.com.” These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <lockheed-martinusa.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent has not been licensed or authorized by Complainant 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 as evidence to show a respondent is or is not 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 of record identifies the registrant as “UK2.Net / UK2.NET Renewals”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website displays competing pay-per-click hyperlinks. Using a disputed domain name to host competing pay-per-click hyperlinks may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. domain admin / private registrations aktien gesellschaft, FA1506001626253 (Forum July 29, 2015) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web page containing advertising links to products that compete with those of Complainant. The Panel finds that this does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under 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 is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain and disrupt Complainant’s business by hosting competing hyperlinks. Registering a disputed domain name to host competing hyperlinks that disrupts a complainant’s business and provides commercial gain may be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Transamerica Corporation v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1798316 (Forum Aug. 20, 2018) (“Respondent's use of the domain name to link to competitors of Complainant, presumably generating pay-per-click or referral fees for Respondent, is indicative of bad faith under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <lockheed-martinusa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: February 8, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page