Ukskunkworks.com

The timeline behind ukskunkworks.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. UK Skunkworks Limited Claim Number: FA0610000812924 PARTIES Complainant is Lockheed Martin Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Susan Okin Goldsmith, of Duane Morris LLP, 744 Broad Street, Suite 1200, Newark, NJ 07102. Respondent is UK Skunkworks Limited (“Respondent”), 52 Avenue Road, Bexleyheath kent DA7 4EG, UK. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ukskunkworks.com>, registered with Tucows 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. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on October 5, 2006; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 6, 2006. On October 5, 2006, Tucows Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ukskunkworks.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows 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 October 10, 2006, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 30, 2006 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@ukskunkworks.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On November 3, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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." 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <ukskunkworks.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKUNK WORKS mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ukskunkworks.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <ukskunkworks.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Lockheed Martin Corporation, has continuously used the SKUNK WORKS mark to refer to its family of aircraft since 1940. Complainant holds the registrations for over two hundred domain names containing the SKUNK WORKS mark or variations of the mark. Numerous books, articles and television programs have featured Complainant’s products and services under the SKUNK WORKS mark Complainant also holds numerous trademark registrations for the SKUNK WORKS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,652,258 issued November 19, 2002; Reg. No. 1,161,482 issued July 14, 1981). Complainant has also registered the mark in other countries, including Australia, China, Israel, Japan, and Taiwan. Respondent registered the <ukskunkworks.com> domain name on April 11, 2006. Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate an online retail store selling drug paraphernalia and products relating to growing illegal drugs such as marijuana. DISCUSSION 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." 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.”). 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant’s valid trademark registrations for the SKUNK WORKS mark with the USPTO demonstrate its rights in the mark in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also ESPN, Inc. v. MySportCenter.com, FA 95326 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2000) (concluding that the complainant demonstrated its rights in the SPORTSCENTER mark through its valid trademark registrations with the USPTO and similar offices around the world). Moreover, Respondent’s <ukskunkworks.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKUNK WORKS mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the registered mark in its entirety and simply adds the term “uk.” In InfoSpace, Inc. v. domains Asia Ventures, FA 198909 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003), the panel found the respondent’s <dogpileuk.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s DOGPILE mark, stating “Internet users may believe that the website located at the <dogpileuk.com> domain name is run by a United Kingdom branch or affiliate of Complainant. . . . Consequently, the Panel finds that the geographic identifier “uk” does not significantly distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).” Because Respondent also merely adds the term “uk” to Complainant’s SKUNK WORKS mark in the <ukskunkworks.com> domain name, Respondent has failed to sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the SKUNK WORKS mark and therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See MFI UK Ltd. v. Jones, D2003-0102 (WIPO May 8, 2003) (finding the <mfiuk.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s MFI mark because the addition of the letters “UK” were merely a common designation for the United Kingdom). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has the initial burden of proof in establishing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). Respondent’s failure to answer the Complaint raises a presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc., AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where no such right or interest was immediately apparent to the panel and the respondent did not come forward to suggest any right or interest it may have possessed). However, the Panel will now examine the record to determine if Respondent has rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c). Additionally, even though the WHOIS information lists “UK Skunkworks Limited” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, there is no other evidence in the record suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names and Respondent has failed to respond. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also City News & Video v. Citynewsandvideo, FA 244789 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 5, 2004) (“Although Respondent’s WHOIS information lists its name as ‘citynewsandvideo,’ there is no evidence before the Panel to indicate that Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the disputed domain name <citynewsandvideo.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). . Furthermore, Respondent is using the <ukskunkworks.com> domain name to maintain a website selling products related to illegal drugs such as marijuana. In Nycomed Danmark ApS v. Diaz, D2006-0779 (WIPO Aug. 15, 2006), the panel concluded that the respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to operate a website promoting an illegal food supplement was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Likewise, Respondent is not using the <ukskunkworks.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to its own website for commercial gain. See MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com, D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the famous MSNBC mark where the respondent attempted to profit using the complainant’s mark by redirecting Internet traffic to its own website). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent’s use of the <ukskunkworks.com> domain name to divert Internet users seeking information on Complainant to its own website selling unrelated products suggests bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), as Respondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark. See Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Commc’ns Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to attract users to a website sponsored by the respondent). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <ukskunkworks.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist Dated: November 16, 2006 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.