Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Mr Healrd Diviolrg
Claim Number: FA1406001562892
Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Lynne M. J. Boisineau of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Mr Healrd Diviolrg (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <lockheedmartincorporationusa.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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 4, 2014; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on June 4, 2014.
On June 5, 2014, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by email to the National Arbitration Forum that the <lockheedmartincorporationusa.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 June 5, 2014, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 25, 2014 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@lockheedmartincorporationusa.com. Also on June 5, 2014, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 1, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 is a corporation that ranks among the largest companies, both in the United States and globally. Complainant registered the LOCKHEED MARTIN mark in the United States in 1995. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <lockheedmartincorporationusa.com> is confusingly similar to its mark, noting that the addition of “Corporation” and “USA” contribute to the likelihood of confusion. Complainant states that it has not authorized Respondent to use its mark and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and asserts that Respondent’s only use of the domain name is for a website that contains no content other than a bare “cgi-bin/” link to an error page. On this basis Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Finally, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the mark to trade off of the reputation and goodwill of Complainant’s mark. The domain name was registered through a proxy service in an attempt to conceal Respondent’s identity, and Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s communications concerning the domain name. Complainant contends on these grounds that that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
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(e), 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 (Nat. Arb. 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 disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered trademark, but for the addition of the generic term “Corporation,” the geographic term “USA,” and the “.com” top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity with Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Sayed Rakibul Alam / CTGHOSTBD.COM, FA1550121 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2014) (finding <lockheedmartincorporationus.com> confusingly similar to LOCKHEED MARTIN). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark and is nearly identical to its corporate name, and it was registered without authorization and, presumably, for the purpose of profiting by confusion with Complainant. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and have been used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name “primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.” Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that “by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent’s] web site or location.”
A domain name may be so closely connected with a well-known trademark that its very use suggests opportunistic bad faith. See, e.g., Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Tim Bruce, FA1544867 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2014) (finding opportunistic bad faith in registration of <texaco-oil-us.com>). The use of a privacy service to conceal a registrant’s identity, and the lack of any indication that a domain name is being used for a legitimate purpose—though not in themselves conclusive—can also serve as indications that a domain name was registered in bad faith. See Novartis AG v. Javapolis, Brian, FA 1543982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 14, 2014).
Under the circumstances presented here, the Panel is persuaded that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, in an attempt to exploit the reputation and goodwill of Complainant’s mark.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lockheedmartincorporationusa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 1, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page