Lockheed Martin Corporation v. rauf khan / m
Claim Number: FA2103001937907
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is rauf khan / m (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lockheedmartinjobs.us>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 25, 2021; the Forum received payment on March 25, 2021.
On March 25, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <lockheedmartinjobs.us> 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 the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 26, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 15, 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@lockheedmartinjobs.us. Also on March 26, 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 April 21, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy ("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 usTLD Policy, usTLD 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
1. Respondent’s <lockheedmartinjobs.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <lockheedmartinjobs.us> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <lockheedmartinjobs.us> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant is the world’s largest defense contractor and a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 100,000 people worldwide. Complainant holds a registration for the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark with multiple trademark agencies, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,022,037, registered December 10, 1996).
Respondent registered the <lockheedmartinjobs.us> domain name on March 7, 2021, and uses it to redirect users to a website unrelated to Complainant.
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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”)
Respondent’s <lockheedmartinjobs.us> domain name contains the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark in its entirety and merely adds the descriptive/generic term “jobs” and the ccTLD “.us.” The addition of a generic or descriptive term and a ccTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also Dansko, LLC v. zhang wu, FA 1757745 (Forum Dec. 12, 2017) (finding the <danskoshoes.us.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the DANSKO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), despite the addition of the “.us” ccTLD and the “.com” gTLD). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <lockheedmartinjobs.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <lockheedmartinjobs.us> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Respondent has not been authorized by Complainant to use the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “rauf khan / m.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as “Operi Manaha,” and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark); see also SPTC, Inc. and Sotheby’s v. Tony Yeh shiun, FA 1810835 (Forum Nov. 13, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the <sothebys.email> domain name where the WHOIS identified Respondent as “Tony Yeh shiun,” Complainant never authorized or permitted Respondent to use the SOTHEBY’S mark, and Respondent failed to submit a response.).
Complainant argues that Respondent has not used the <lockheedmartinjobs.us> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect users to an website unrelated to Complainant. Complainant provides a sceenshot showing the disputed domain name redirects users to a website at the World Health Organization. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv). See Spike's Holding, LLC v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1736008 (Forum July 21, 2017) (“Using a confusingly similar domain to display unrelated content can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use… The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s unrelated use of the <finishnline.com> domain name evinces a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith to intentionally attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and/or endorsement of the website. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain name and the complainant’s AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the <lockheedmartinjobs.us> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark, based on the worldwide prominence of the mark. Complainant highlights that prior panels have recognized the famous nature of Complainant’s mark. See e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Admin Officer, FA1908001859570 (Forum Sept. 19, 2019) (“Complainant also contends that, in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's LOCKHEED MARTIN mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the domain name without knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. The Panel agrees and finds that actual knowledge is additional evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark, in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of the complainant’s EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus the respondent registered the domain name in bad faith).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lockheedmartinjobs.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 22, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page