Westmore · UDRP DecisionBaesystems-us.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <baesystems-us.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the BAE SYSTEMS mark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that registration and use were in bad faith. The decisive conduct included apparent use of domain-based email to impersonate the Complainant’s IT Purchasing Manager and request shipments of IT equipment from suppliers.
The timeline behind baesystems-us.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind baesystems-us.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates that a domain may satisfy the bad-faith element based on email use even when its associated website is inactive. Incorporating a complete trademark together with a geographic abbreviation can enhance the appearance of an official regional operation, while apparent employee impersonation and supplier targeting provide compelling evidence of intended confusion.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION BAE Systems PLC v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Larry Desmond, XYZ Inc. Case No. D2019-0617 1. The Parties The Complainant is BAE Systems PLC, United Kingdom, represented by CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP, United Kingdom. The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Larry Desmond, XYZ Inc., United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <baesystems-us.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 20, 2019. On March 21, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 21, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 25, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 29, 2019. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 3, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 23, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 30, 2019. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on May 8, 2019. 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 a well-known and globally active defence, aerospace and security company founded 19 years ago in the United Kingdom. The Complainant is the owner of a number of United Kingdom (“UK”), European Union (“EU”) and United States (“US”) trademarks for BAE and BAE SYSTEMS ( e.g ., UK registration No. 1540221 of June 30, 1996; EU registration No. 1358985 of October 14, 1999; and US registration No. 1358985 of October 20, 1999). The disputed domain name was registered on February 21, 2019. Prior to the Complaint the disputed domain name resolved to a pay-per-click page as evidenced at annex 11 of the Complaint. Currently, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. According to evidence submitted by the Complainant, it appears that the Respondent is using the email handle “@baesystems-us.com” for potentially fraudulent activities. In the corresponding emails, the Respondent has purported to be the Complainant’s “IT Purchasing Manager” and contacted the Complainant’s IT suppliers, in some instances requesting shipment of large quantities of IT equipment. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the BAE SYSTEMS trademark, which is reproduced in its entirety in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s BAE SYSTEMS trademark only by a hyphen and the geographical term “us” (designating the United States). It is the consensus view of UDRP panels that the addition of such descriptive terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sections 1.7 and 1.8 ). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Complainant has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. Based on the Complainant’s credible contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the circumstances of this case, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. As described in Factual Background above, the disputed domain name currently resolves to an inactive website, while emails with the handle “@baesystems-us.com” appear to be used for fraudulent activities. By creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark for commercial gain and attempting to disrupt the Complainant’s business, the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has also fulfilled 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 <baesystems-us.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Tobias Zuberbühler Sole Panelist Date: May 21, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around baesystems-us.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.