À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Igor Brkljacic

Case No. DCO2013-0024

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation of Maryland, United States of America (“US”), represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, US.

The Respondent is Igor Brkljacic of Hrvatska, Croatia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lockheedmartin.com.co> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 19, 2013. On September 19, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On September 19, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 30, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 20, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 21, 2013.

The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on October 31, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an American company that first traded under the Lockheed name in 1926. The Complainant is well known as a designer and manufacturer in the fields of aerospace, aeronautics and aircraft, electronic systems, information and technology services, integrated systems and solutions, and space systems. It is a member of the United States Fortune 500 and is currently ranked 59 on that list.

The Complainant is the owner of a trade mark comprising the words “Lockheed Martin” (the LOCKHEED MARTIN Mark), in jurisdictions across the world, which it first registered in 1995. The Complainant has also registered the trademarks LOCKHEED and LOCKHEED MARTIN or similar spellings thereof as domain names under almost 380 generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) and country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) worldwide including <lockheed.com> and <lockheedmartin.com>.

The Domain Name <lockheedmartin.com.co> was registered on July 7, 2013. The Domain Name currently resolves to a website (the “Respondent’s Website”) that appears to be a parking page maintained by the Registrar that offers a series of click-through advertisements. On August 1, 2013 the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent. The Respondent replied to the cease and desist letter, offering to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant for a “generous offer” and threatened to transfer the Domain Name to a third party if the Complainant took legal action against it.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant makes the following contentions:

(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN Mark;

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant is the owner of the LOCKHEED MARTIN Mark. It owns trade mark registrations for the LOCKHEED MARTIN Mark in countries around the world and has done so since 1995. The Domain Name consists of the LOCKHEED MARTIN Mark and the ccTLD “.com.co”.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent does not hold a trade mark for “lockheed martin” nor is it authorized by the Complainant to register the Domain Name. The Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Domain Name is currently connected to a web site that promotes other commercial websites for which the Respondent may receive revenue.

The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Upon making contact with the Respondent, the Respondent immediately offered to “sell this valuable domain name and give away all rights as a domain owner (Generous Offer is welcome).” Accordingly, the Respondent’s reply indicates that it has registered the Domain Name in bad faith for the purpose of selling the Domain Name to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name. In addition the Respondent is using the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a commercial website where the Respondent provides various sponsored click-through links which direct to additional search pages with pay-per-click links, or other commercial websites.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.

The Complainant is the owner of the LOCKHEED MARTIN Mark, having registrations for LOCKHEED MARTIN as a trade mark in various countries around the world, including Colombia.

The Domain Name consists of the LOCKHEED MARTIN Mark and the ccTLD “.com.co”. It is well established that the gTLD or ccTLD (such as “.com.co”) may be disregarded when evaluating whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trade mark, see eBay Inc. v Akram Mehmood, WIPO Case No. DAE2007-0001; Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D2000-1525 and Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s LOCKHEED MARTIN Mark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

A. Rights or Legitimate Interests

To succeed on this element, a complainant must make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If such a prima facie case is made out, then the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates several ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:

“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” (Policy, paragraph 4(c)).

The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. It has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the LOCKHEED MARTIN Mark or a mark similar to the LOCKHEED MARTIN Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or any similar name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use.

The Respondent currently uses the Domain Name to operate a website that contains a number of advertisements on a pay-per-click basis that have no obvious connection to the Domain Name. Such use is not a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has had an opportunity to rebut the presumption that it lacks rights or legitimate interests but has chosen not to do so. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

B. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or

(ii) the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location.

The Panel finds that the Respondent at the time of registration of the Domain Name knew of the existence of Complainant. The Complainant is a well-known company internationally. If the Respondent had conducted a simple Google search, or visited the corresponding “.com” domain name <lockheedmartin.com> it would have identified the Complainant as a trade mark holder. The terms “lockheed” and “martin” are coined words that combined have no meaning other than by reference to the Complainant. It is difficult to conceive of a reason to register the Domain Name other than by awareness of the Complainant and the Respondent has not supplied any such reason.

The Panel finds that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith as there are circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling the Domain Name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trade mark for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name.

The Respondent’s response to the cease and desist letter of August 1, 2013:

a) does not contain any coherent explanation for the registration of the Domain Name;

b) does not set out any coherent explanation for how the Domain Name is to be used;

c) indicates that the Respondent is prepared to sell the Domain Name and solicits a generous offer from the Complainant; and

d) indicates that if the Complainant does not make an offer to the Respondent, the Respondent will engage in cyberflight, transferring the Domain Name through many different owners in order to prevent the Complainant from recovering the Domain Name through any legal processes.

In the absence of any plausible explanation for the registration and use of the Domain Name and in the presence of positive conduct by the Respondent, namely the solicitation of an offer to sell the Domain Name and a threat to engage in cyberflight if such an offer is not forthcoming, the Panel is prepared to infer that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant for a profit. Such actions amount to registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <lockheedmartin.com.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

Nicholas Smith
Sole Panelist
Date: November 6, 2013

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/