Rumfordskunkworks.com

The timeline behind rumfordskunkworks.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Lockheed Martin Corporation v. International Fund Processing a/k/a Mark Duff Claim Number: FA0508000531611 PARTIES Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Susan Okin Goldsmith, of Duane Morris LLP, 240 Princeton Avenue, Suite 150, Hamilton, NJ 08619. Respondent is International Fund Processing a/k/a Mark Duff (“Respondent”), represented by Mark C. Del Bianco, 3929 Washington Street, Kensington, MD 20895. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <rumfordskunkworks.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc. PANEL 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. Joel Grossman as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 4, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 8, 2005. On August 5, 2005, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <rumfordskunkworks.com> domain name is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On August 15, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of September 6, 2005 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@rumfordskunkworks.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 9, 2005. On September 13, 2005, Complainant submitted a Reply to Response. On September 20, 2005, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Joel Grossman as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is the owner of a famous mark, SKUNK WORKS. This mark has been in use by Complainant since the mid-1940s, and a myriad of magazine and newspaper articles, as well as books, have been written referencing this mark in relation to Complainant. Additionally, Complainant has more than 100 domain names incorporating this mark. Complainant contends that Respondent’s domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to its mark. Additionally, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the mark. Complainant notes that Respondent has never used its domain name in any business venture, and only hopes to do so. The domain name is not currently in use, and is merely “parked” at Network Solutions. The <rumfordskunkworks.com> domain name has no connection whatsoever to Respondent’s business, which is called Barnett Shea Ventures. Finally, Complainant asserts that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith since (1) it clearly incorporates Complainant’s trademark, and (2) Respondent has offered to sell the name to Complainant for $500,000. Complainant asserts that the offer supports a bad faith finding as it appears that the domain name was registered “primarily for the purpose of selling [the name] … to Complainant.” B. Respondent Respondent denies all of Complainant’s assertions. First, Respondent asserts that the term “skunk works” has a popular meaning unrelated to Complainant, and that in fact it originated in the “Lil Abner” comic strip. Further, Respondent argues that even if the term “skunk works” standing alone might be viewed as a reference to Complainant’s operations, the addition of the word “Rumford” before the words “skunk works” in the domain name removes any possible similarity or confusion. Respondent also denies that it has no legitimate interest in the name. It asserts that the name would be a humorous or irreverent name for a financial business, and therefore might draw customers. It asserts that any other name would not be as successful. Finally, Respondent denies that it registered the name in bad faith, with the intention of selling it to Complainant. In fact, argues Respondent, it had no such thought until it was contacted by Complainant in connection with this proceeding. Moreover, Respondent asserts that its “offer” to purchase the name was not serious, and was meant as a response to what it deems abusive behavior by Complainant. FINDINGS The Panel finds (1) that the <rumfordskunkworks.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered SKUNK WORKS mark; (2) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; and (3) that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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 the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The Panel notes that this is hardly the first time that Complainant has challenged another party’s incorporation of its mark in a domain name. No fewer than twelve decisions have been issued, and Complainant has prevailed in ten of the twelve. All twelve prior panels, including the two panels which declined to rule for Complainant, agreed that there is confusing similarity between the domain names they reviewed and Complainant’s mark. In this case, the Panel agrees that given the unique nature of the term “skunk works,” it is axiomatic that the public would be confused by a name incorporating this mark. An additional word or words will not diminish the confusion. Thus earlier panels have found confusing similarity in domain names such as <skunkworksentertainment.com> and <skunkwerxmotorsports.com>. See Lockheed Martin Corp v. Interstreamer.com, D2003-0836 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2004); Lockheed Martin Corp. v. SkunkWerx Motorsports, D2004-0705 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2004). In the instant case, the Panel concludes, as did the earlier panels, that the addition of a word, in this case the word “rumford,” does not eliminate the confusion, and the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Rights or Legitimate Interests Once the Complainant makes out a prima facie case in support of its position, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000). Here, Respondent has not shown any use or legitimate interest in the domain name. It asserts that it wanted to acquire the name for further use, but has no history of using the name, or anything like the name. Merely “parking” the domain name is not enough of a use to meet Respondent’s burden. See, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Rayne, FA 101465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 17, 2001). Respondent has never been known by the domain name. The Panel notes that Respondent’s business name, Barnett Shea Ventures, has nothing whatsoever in common with the domain name. Respondent has completely failed to meet its burden of showing that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith One of the classic examples of bad faith registration is registration for the purpose of selling the domain name to Complainant. In this case, in a letter dated July 29, 2005 (attached to Complaint at Appendix 10) Respondent offered to sell the name to Complainant for $500,000. Although Respondent now claims that this offer was in response to Complainant’s allegedly “abusive” behavior and was not meant to be taken seriously, the letter itself suggests otherwise. In its final sentence the letter states, in part, “[T]his is an amicable and general offer, made with goodwill, and with tremendous respect to the original mavericks that created Lockheed Martin . . . .” Thus, the letter expressly states, in respectful tones, that the offer is serious. Respondent’s post facto denial that this was a serious offer is not credited by the Panel. As stated in CBS Broad., Inc. v. Saidi, D2000-0243 (WIPO June 2, 2000) “[A]n offer to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name is not only evidence of, but conclusively establishes that, the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Policy, par. 4(b) (i).” See also Cream Pie Club v. Halford, FA 95235 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000), in which bad faith was found where respondent offered to sell its domain name to complainant for $125,000. The Panel also notes that the domain name was registered in March 2005, many years after the mark was registered and became famous. Respondent does not and cannot contend that it was unaware of the mark at the time of the registration. As stated in another case finding bad faith registration involving Complainant’s mark: “Respondent was on notice of Complainant’s trademark rights when it registered the domain name …” Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Skunk Works Aviation, D2004-0823 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2004). Given the lack of any use of the domain name by Respondent, its knowledge of the mark, and its offer to sell the domain name to Complainant as soon as Complainant contacted Respondent, the Panel finds that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <rumfordskunkworks.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Joel Grossman, Panelist Dated: September 26, 2005 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.