Leidos, Inc. v. Operation Services
Claim Number: FA2112001976909
Complainant is Leidos, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Kandis M. Koustenis of Bean, Kinney & Korman P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Operation Services (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <ledlos.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 13, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 13, 2021.
On December 14, 2021, Wild West Domains, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <ledlos.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, 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 December 17, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 6, 2022 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@ledlos.com. Also on December 17, 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 January 10, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant has rights in the LEIDOS mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <ledlos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LEIDOS mark. Respondent replaces the letter “I” in Complainant’s mark with an “L” and adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <ledlos.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the LEIDOS mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is using email addresses associated with the domain name to pass off as Complainant and defraud third parties.
Respondent registered and used the <ledlos.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent uses email addresses associated with the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant in order perpetrate fraud. Respondent’s domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LEIDOS mark due to the use and fame of the mark in commerce.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in LEIDOS.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the LEIDOS mark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in LEIDOS.
Respondent used email associated with the at-issue domain name to poses as Complainant in furtherance of fraud.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the LEIDOS mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 <ledlos.com> domain name includes Complainant’s entire LEIDOS trademark with its letter “i” or “I” replaced by the graphically similar letter “l” or “L”. The misspelled trademark is followed by the generic top-level domain name “.site” to complete the domain name. The differences between Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s domain name do nothing to materially distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <ledlos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LEIDOS trademark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WordPress Foundation v. Bernat Lubos, FA 1613444 (Forum May 21, 2015) (finding that the <worspress.org> domain name is confusingly similar to the WORDPRESS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), stating, “On a standard QWERTY keyboard, the letters ‘s’ and ‘d’ are adjacent. A minor misspelling is not normally sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark.”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Operation Services” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <ledlos.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <ledlos.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Moreover, Respondent uses email associated with the <ledlos.com> domain name to pass off as Complainant in an attempt to fraudulently induce those who appear to have been invoiced by Complainant to effectively submit payments to Respondent. The email originating from <ledlos.com> pretends to be from an accounts receivable representative of Complainant and brazenly explains that all payments to Complainant should be directed Complainant’s “new bank” which of course is not Complainant’s bank at all but an account controlled by Respondent. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant’s CEO by means of email addresses at the confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to determine Complainant’s ability to process a transfer. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First and as mentioned elsewhere herein, Respondent used the confusingly similar <ledlos.com> domain to pass itself off as Complainant via email hosted by the at-issue domain name in an effort to defraud. Using the <ledlos.com> domain name to facilitate fraud shows Respondent’s bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (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)”).
Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the LEIDOS mark when it registered <ledlos.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s LEIDOS trademark and from Respondent’s use of the domain name to attempt to pass itself off as Complainant in an effort to defraud third parties. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in such domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); 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).
Although not expressly argued by Complainant, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark, or as appears to be the case here will read the misspelled trademark laden domain name and confuse it with its target trademark. Although misspelled, Complainant’s LEIDOS trademark is nevertheless clearly recognizable when reading Respondent’s <ledlos.com> domain name. Respondent’s substitution of a letter in Complainant’s mark with a letter that can appear indistinguishable from the letter it is replacing is indicative of Respondent’s intent to use the domain name to exploit Complainant’s trademark. Indeed, at a glance Respondent’s domain name passes for Complainant’s proper domain name at <ledios.com>. Respondent’s typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also, Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Skander, FA 135598 (Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (stating that “[b]y registering the ‘typosquatted’ domain name in [Complainant’s] affiliate program, Respondent profits on the goodwill of [Complainant’s] protected marks and primary Internet domain names,” which is evidence of bad faith registration and use).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ledlos.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: January 11, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page