Elbitsystemsusa.com

The timeline behind elbitsystemsusa.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 Elbit Systems of America, LLC and Elbit Systems Ltd. v. Brandon Kreutz Claim Number: FA2601002201836 PARTIES Complainant is Elbit Systems of America, LLC and Elbit Systems Ltd. ("Complainant"), represented by Jake M. Gipson of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Alabama, USA. Respondent is Brandon Kreutz ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <elbitsystemsusa.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Steven M. Levy as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 27, 2026; Forum received payment on January 27, 2026. On January 27, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <elbitsystemsusa.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On January 28, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@elbitsystemsusa.com. Also on January 28, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 17, 2026. On February 17, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUES: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS In the instant proceedings, there are two named Complainants. The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are Rule 3(a) and Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). Rule 3(a) states, "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." The two named Complainants in this matter are Elbit Systems of America, LLC and Elbit Systems Ltd. and the Complaint states that "Elbit Systems Ltd. is the parent company of Elbit Systems of America, LLC." Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated: It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity. See also Procter & Gamble Business Services Canada Company, The Gillette Company LLC, Braun GmbH and The Procter & Gamble company v. Whois privacy protection service, Internet Invest, Ltd. dba Imena.ua / Artem Shostak, Private person 66478, Whois privacy protection service, Internet Invest, Ltd. dba Imena.ua / Artem Shostak, Private person 53397, Privacy Protection, HOSTING UKRAINE LTD / Коваленко Валерий/Konovalenko Valeriy, Privacy Protection, HOSTING UKRAINE LLC / Коваленко Валерий/Konovalenko Valeriy, D2017-1493 (WIPO Oct. 6, 2017) (consolidation of multiple complainants found to be equitable and procedurally efficient where "[t]he Complainant Procter & Gamble is a parent company of the First Three Complainants. Therefore, the evidence shows that the Complainants have a common grievance against the Respondents by virtue of having common legal interest."). In the present case, the Panel interprets the stated relationship between the two named Complainants as a parent and a subsidiary company. Respondent has provided no substantive response in this case to address this issue and so it has not contested this relationship. Under the circumstances the Panel finds that there is a link between the two named Complainants and that they have a specific common grievance against the Respondent who has engaged in a common action that has affected the Complainants in a similar fashion. For the sake of simplicity, Elbit Systems Ltd. and Elbit Systems of America, LLC will hereafter be referred to in this decision as "Complainant" unless otherwise noted. CONSENT TO TRANSFER The Panel notes that, in a circumstance where a Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name to Complainant, it may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the disputed domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004) ("In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy."); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.") However, "[p]roceeding to decision despite consent to transfer is discretionary with the Panel. It depends on the circumstances and reasons for respondent's consent." The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, at 8.04-A.5.iii (Gerald M. Levine, Legal Corner Press, 2025); UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 0.20 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org. Where there is no indication that the disputed domain name was registered, not out of intent to target a complainant's trademark but out of ignorance, negligence, or the like, a Panel may determine that the case requires a full analysis despite a consent to transfer. In one decision, a Panel noted that "there is a public interest in having clarified the improper use of the Complainant's trademarks in the present case, if that is revealed by the evidence." Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. v. Durable Technologies / durable, FA 2145594 (Forum April 16, 2025). In the present case, Respondent has specifically stated that it "does not wish to contest this proceeding and voluntarily consents to the transfer of the domain name <elbitsystemsusa.com> to Complainant." However, the content of Respondent's website raises some troubling questions as to its intent in registering and using the disputed domain name and its communication to Forum (see below) offers no insight into its motivations apart from providing an express denial of bad faith registration and of any intention to infringe or trade upon Complainant's marks. As such, the Panel determines that it is in the public interest to issue a fully analyzed decision in this matter despite Respondent's consent to transfer of the disputed domain name. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a leading provider of high-performance aerospace, defense, and homeland security solutions for the U.S. military and commercial customers and is a global leader in military technology, providing modern security and defense solutions for military and commercial use. It owns numerous registrations for its ELBIT SYSTEMS and ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA trademarks (the "Marks") including Israeli Reg. No. 265933 dated June 17, 2014 and United States Reg. No. 3551803 dated December 23, 2008 and Reg. No. 6907356 registered Nov. 22, 2022. It also owns and uses the domain names <elbitsystems.com>, <elbitamerica.com>, <elbitsystems-us.com>, and <elbitsystemsofamerica.com>. The <elbitsystemsusa.com> domain name, registered on May 29, 2025, is confusingly similar to the Marks as it incorporates the entirety or the most distinctive portion of the Marks and adds only the descriptive term "USA" and the ".com" TLD. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and it hosts a website that passes itself off as Complainant to purportedly offer similar goods and services as Complainant. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of the Marks and based on the above-mentioned website activity. B. Respondent The Response consists of the following statements: Respondent hereby submits this Response pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the UDRP Rules solely to state that Respondent does not wish to contest this proceeding and voluntarily consents to the transfer of the domain name <elbitsystemsusa.com> to Complainant. Respondent expressly: · Denies any intentional bad faith registration or use within the meaning of Policy ¶4(a)(iii); · Denies intent to infringe or trade upon Complainant's marks; · Does not concede the elements required under Policy ¶ 4(a); · Makes no admission as to the factual or legal assertions in the Complaint. However, in the interest of administrative efficiency and to avoid unnecessary expense and burden, Respondent unconditionally consents to the requested remedy of transfer. Respondent respectfully requests that the Panel: 1. Order immediate transfer of the domain name to Complainant; 2. Decline to make substantive findings regarding bad faith, lack of legitimate interest, or confusing similarity beyond what is necessary to effectuate transfer; and 3. Close the administrative proceeding upon issuance of the transfer order. Respondent further reserves all rights and defenses in any other forum pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(k). FINDINGS - Complainant owns rights to the ELBIT SYSTEMS and ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA trademarks and the <elbitsystemsusa.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the Marks; - Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and it operates an impersonation website aimed at competing with Complainant and soliciting information from Complainant's potential customers; and - The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's Marks and hosts a website that passes itself off as Complainant to offer competing services and solicits information from Complainant's potential customers. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 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 claims rights in the ELBIT SYSTEMS and ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA Marks through multiple trademark registrations, including those in Israel and the United States. Registration of a mark with such trademark authorities is a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Emerson Electric Co. v. Cai Jian Lin / Shen Zhen Shi colorsun Zi Dong Hua You Xian Gong Si, FA 1798802 (Forum Aug. 31, 2018) ("Registering a mark with multiple trademark agencies around the world is sufficient to establish rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") Complainant provides copies of its trademark registration certificates and, based on this evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated rights in the Marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Marks. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a generic or geographic term, along with a TLD, is typically insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from the asserted mark. See Dell Inc. v. Suchada Phrasaeng, FA 1745812 (Forum Sep. 28, 2017) ("Adding geographical terms does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark to prevent a finding of confusingly similarity under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.") See also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.") The <elbitsystemsusa.com> domain name reflects the entirety of the ELBIT SYSTEMS mark and the most distinctive portion of the ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA mark and adds only the generic geographic term "USA" and the ".com" TLD. These minimal changes do not reduce confusion and the mark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests"). Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that it has not granted Respondent any permission to use any portion of the Marks. Panels frequently look at the available WHOIS information when considering whether a Respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same). Furthermore, lack of authorization to use a mark serves as an additional indication that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 1919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists 'er nong wu' as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).") In the present case, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name reflects Respondent's name as "Brandon Kreutz". Further, Complainant states that "Respondent has no affiliation or connection with Complainant or Complainant's business" and adds that "Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use the ELBIT Marks or register the Disputed Domain Name." As Respondent has not made any substantive or contrary assertions in its Response, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Respondent is known otherwise or that Respondent is authorized to use any portion of the ELBIT SYSTEMS or ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA Marks. Therefore, the Panel finds no evidence upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, the submitted evidence does not indicate that Respondent uses the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or that it makes a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof because the website that resolves from the disputed domain name attempts to pass itself off as Complainant and seek the submission of information from users who are likely Complainant's potential customers. Using a disputed domain name in this manner is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Lennar Pacific Properties Management, LLC, Lennar Corporation v. Natalia Rojas, D2025-5192 (WIPO Feb. 3, 2026) ("based on the use made of the Disputed Domain Name, previously to solicit Internet users' contact information, or the current use to resolve to an inactive error landing page, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name under the circumstances of the case.") In the present case, Complainant submits into evidence a screenshot of the present resolution of the <elbitsystemsusa.com> website which displays a "coming soon" message in connection with the name "Elbit Systems USA" and includes a background image depicting a military user operating an electronic control system. Also submitted are archived screenshots of Respondent's website, ranging from July 19th to November 7th of 2025, all showing a page that includes the "Elbit Systems USA" title followed by the headline "Advanced Manufacturing Solutions" and a button titled "Get A Quote". Further down appears an "About Elbit Systems USA" section that includes the text "At Elbit Systems USA, we specialize in providing cutting-edge manufacturing solutions tailored to meet the needs of various industries. Our expertise in advanced technology ensures high-quality production and efficiency." It goes on to say "At Elbit America, we are committed to delivering innovative solutions that protect and save lives." Of particular note is a "Contact Us" portion of the archived website that displays a postal address for Elbit Systems USA which is identical to that of Complainant's actual mailing address in Texas, along with a form inviting users to provide their name, email address, and a message to Respondent. The submitted evidence leads the Panel to conclude that Complainant's assertions of passing off, competition, and customer information gathering are well founded and Respondent has not sought to explain its activities in its Response other than a blanket denial of any "intent to infringe or trade upon Complainant's marks". As Complainant has made a prima facie case which has not been rebutted, the Panel finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in compliance with Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that Respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's ELBIT Marks." Actual knowledge can provide a solid foundation upon which to build an argument of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and can be demonstrated based on the use to which a disputed domain name is put. See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (prior knowledge found based on "Respondent's use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant"). Actual knowledge may also be inferred based on the fame of an asserted mark. See AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field.") To support its assertions, Complainant asserts that its "ELBIT Marks had become well known in connection with Complainant's military and defense goods and services". In support, it provides screenshots from its own <elbitsystems.com> website and of its Facebook page. While this provides some hint of the Marks' reputation, the Panel finds more convincing the content of Respondent's website including its listing of Complainant's Texas address in the "Contact" section of the site. Based on this evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its Marks at the time that it registered the disputed domain name. Complainant further argues that Respondent registered and uses the <elbitsystemsusa.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent diverts business by creating confusion with Complainant's mark to compete with it and gathering consumer's personal information. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See LF, LLC v. wang jinglu, FA 2196645 (Forum Jan. 27, 2026) ("The Panel notes that Complainant also provides screenshots from <thestyleselections.com> showing that Respondent solicits personal information from users, which constitutes phishing, and thus finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).") The Panel again references the current and archived screenshots provided by Complainant which shows Respondent's use of the ELBIT SYSTEMS USA name, text that gives the clear impression that the site originates with Complainant by numerous uses of the words "we" and "our" in relation to Complainant's name, and a "Contact" section that uses Complainant's own address and include a form which seeks to collect personal information from users. Complainant asserts that "Respondent is attempting to use the domain name <elbitsystemsusa.com> to improperly pass off itself as Complainant and to create a false impression that Respondent is affiliated, connected, and associated with Complainant or that Respondent's website and commercial activities originate from or are sponsored and approved by Complainant". All of the evidence presented supports the conclusion that it is Respondent's intent that its website appear to originate with Complainant based on confusion with the ELBIT SYSTEMS and ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA Marks for commercial gain. As noted above, Respondent's blanket denial of bad faith or an intent to infringe Complainant's Marks does not explain or comport with its actions. As such, the Panel finds sufficient ground upon which to conclude that Respondent both registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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 <elbitsystemsusa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Steven M. Levy, Panelist Dated: February 20, 2026 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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