URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Huiber
Claim Number: FA1606001679229
DOMAIN NAME
<lockheedmartin.pw>
<lockheed-martin.top>
PARTIES
| Complainant: Lockheed Martin Corporation of Bethesda, MD, United States of America | |
|
Complainant Representative: McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Sarah E Bro of Irvine, CA, United States of America
|
| Respondent: Huiber Jastin Jastin of Secaucus, OTHER, US | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
| Registries: .PW Registry,Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd. | |
| Registrars: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com,PDR Ltd |
EXAMINER
| The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding. | |
| Mr. Tomáš Abelovský, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
| Complainant Submitted: June 13, 2016 | |
| Commencement: June 16, 2016 | |
| Default Date: July 1, 2016 | |
| Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules"). |
RELIEF SOUGHT
| Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration. |
STANDARD OF REVIEW
| Clear and convincing evidence. |
FINDINGS and DISCUSSION
| Findings of Fact: Complainant has provided the following initial explanatory text, in its Complaint: “1. Complainant is entitled to a presumption of ownership, validity, and the exclusive right to use its LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark (“Mark”) in connection with the goods and services named in its numerous registration certificates, including the registration record submitted in this matter. 15 U.S.C. §1057(b). 2. Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN trademark is not comprised of descriptive words in which the Respondent might have an interest. In fact, an Administrative Panel has found that Complainant’s LOCKHEED mark is an “invented term,” and that LOCKHEED MARTIN “is an arbitrary mark” that is “highly distinctive,” thus increasing “the likelihood of Internet user confusion involving Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name.” See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Ning Ye, WIPO Case No. D2000-1733 (May 17, 2001). 3. Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s Mark or any domain names incorporating the Mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the LockheedMartin.pw and Lockheed-Martin.top domains (“Domain Names”). 4. Respondent has not engaged in demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Names with a bona fide offering of goods or services. 5. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names, nor is it using the Domain Names for any legitimate purpose. Instead, the LockheedMartin.pw domain is being used to host and install malware on a visitor’s computer or device, and Complainant believes that the LockheedMartin.top domain is also being used for malware, but the domain is currently linked to an inactive website, which states “[t]his site can’t be reached.” 6. The security risk caused by Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Names is significant because Complainant is a provider of goods and services to defense and civil government customers, and the chance for Respondent to intercept sensitive information or to use the Domain Names to create impersonation websites is great. 7. Respondent’s failure to use the Domain Names for a legitimate purpose is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith use and registration of the Domain under URS Policy 1.2.6.3. See Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Hand ofYes, FA1411001590665 (Nat. Arb. Forum December 11, 2014), holding that “… registration of the disputed domain name is targeting the Complainant and its trademark, as the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s wellestablished trademark…there is no plausible reason to find registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in good faith. The use of the domain name is in bad faith.” 8. Under URS Policy 1.2.6.3.b., Respondent registered the Domain Names in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting the Mark in corresponding domain names, as Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. See ARCELORMITTAL S.A. v. N/A et al., FA 1507001627541 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 13, 2015). 9. The above facts show there is clear evidence that the Domain Names have been registered and used in bad faith and can cause significant disruption to Complainant’s business, and are also a security threat that may tarnish Complainant’s reputation and the goodwill associated with Complainant’s Mark.” Complainant has provided the following evidences: (1) Proof of the use for trademark; (2) the Domain Names’ websites screenshots; and (3) the Complainant's trademark record (USPTO). Respondent has not provided its Response to the Complaint. |
|
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has proven that he owns registered trademark “LOCKHEED MARTIN”. The Domain Names reproduce this trademark and are similar. Also, the gTLDs “.PW” and “.TOP” does not reduce the similarity with the trademark. Therefore, the registered Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds valid registration, which is in current use (see also FA1406001563665, NAF June 27, 2014). [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has proven that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Furthermore, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use his trademark.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has proven that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith. Complainant has thus satisfied paragraph 1.2.6.3 of the URS Procedure. It can be confirmed, that Complainant's well-known trademark/name is used in connection with the goods and services named in its numerous registration certificates, including the registration record submitted in this matter. Furthermore, Respondent must have been aware of this trademark/name at the time of the registration of the Domain Names. He must also have known that the registration of the Domain Names was in bad faith. Moreover, the Respondent has prevented the Complainant from using/reflecting its trademark in a corresponding Domain Names. Also, “LockheedMartin.pw” domain was used to host and install malware on a visitor’s computer or device. In conclusion, a passive possession of identical Domain Names consisting of protected word mark and without any manifest proof of purpose towards commercial benefit, can't represent a good faith use under overall circumstances presented in this case. FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds as follows:
DETERMINATION
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant
has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing
evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for
the duration of the registration:
|
Mr. Tomáš Abelovský Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page