Leidoshr.com

The timeline behind leidoshr.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 Leidos, Inc. v. Arruda Bianca / Leidos Claim Number: FA2602002203144 PARTIES Complainant is Leidos, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Kandis M. Koustenis of Bean Kinney & Korman, PC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Arruda Bianca / Leidos ("Respondent"), USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <leidoshr.com>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 2, 2026; Forum received payment on February 2, 2026. On February 3, 2026, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <leidoshr.com> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu 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 February 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 26, 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@leidoshr.com. Also on February 6, 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. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 27, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, 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 i) Complainant demonstrates rights in the LEIDOS mark through its ownership of various trademark registrations, including USPTO Registration No. 4,937,101 (registered April 12, 2016). The LEIDOS mark is widely recognized among consumers as uniquely identifying Complainant as the exclusive source of goods and services offered under the mark. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's LEIDOS mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely appending the suffix "HR," which is a descriptive or generic term referring to "human resources." ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized or licensed by Complainant to use the LEIDOS mark. Moreover, Respondent has provided false WHOIS information, which precludes a finding that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the mark. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a "parked" page containing links to the registrar's own products and services. iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use under the circumstances. Respondent's submission of false and misleading contact information during the registration process further supports a finding of bad faith. There is no conceivable legitimate use for which Respondent could have intended the disputed domain name. Given the fame of the mark, it is appropriate to infer Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the LEIDOS mark at the time of registration. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on December 20, 2025. 2. Complainant has established rights in the LEIDOS mark through its ownership of USPTO Registration No. 4,937,101 (registered April 12, 2016). 3. The disputed domain name resolves to a "parked" page containing links to the registrar's products and services. 4. Respondent registered the disputed domain name by misrepresenting its organization as "LEIDOS" and providing a fictitious mailing address using the state abbreviation "AE," which is a non-existent U.S. state. 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. 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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in the LEIDOS mark by virtue of its registration with the USPTO, e.g., Reg. No. 4,937,101, registered April 12, 2016. A registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant has provided evidence of its USPTO registration, the Panel determines that Complainant holds rights in the LEIDOS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <leidoshr.com>, is confusingly similar to its LEIDOS mark, as it is a complete and exact reproduction of Complainant's LEIDOS mark with the mere addition of "HR," which is a generic term commonly understood to mean "human resources." The Panel notes that the inclusion of generic terms and a gTLD is insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("Respondent merely adds the term 'supports' and a '.org' gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's LEIDOS 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), at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does, in fact, hold rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant asserts that Respondent is neither authorized nor permitted to use Complainant's mark in any manner. Although Respondent is listed in the WHOIS information as "Arruda Bianca / Leidos," there is no indication that Respondent is commonly known by the LEIDOS name. Complainant argues that Respondent provided false and misleading mailing address information to the registrar in connection with the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name by misrepresenting that its organization is "LEIDOS" and providing a fictitious mailing address using the state abbreviation "AE," which is a non-existent U.S. state. LEIDOS is an arbitrary term with no meaning beyond identifying Complainant as the exclusive source of certain products and services. Furthermore, the Panel notes that there is no evidence in the record to support that Respondent is authorized to use the mark or that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name. In the absence of any rebuttal from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant further contends that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead resolves it to a "parked" page with links to the registrar's products and services. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii). Complainant has submitted a screenshot showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a "parked" page with links to the registrar's products and services promoting the registrar's services under the heading "Start your online journey," which includes categories such as "Build your website today," "Prompt your website," and "Power your projects with VPS." The Panel finds that Respondent is ultimately responsible for the website content, even on a supposedly parked site, as Respondent is the owner of the disputed domain name. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Richard Pompilio, FA 1092410 (Forum Nov. 20, 2007) ("As a rule, the owner of a parked domain name does not control the content appearing at the parking site. Nevertheless, it is ultimately respondent who is responsible for how its domain name is used."). The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known mark, for a parked page promoting a third party's products and services diverts Internet users seeking Complainant to a webpage promoting a third party's products and services. Such use fails to qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the considerations set forth above. Each of these factors contributes to the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a response nor otherwise attempted to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that Respondent's mere passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes evidence that Respondent is acting in bad faith. Respondent's submission of false and misleading contact information during registration further supports a finding of bad faith. The Panel observes that the passive holding of a domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). see Dermtek Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sang Im / Private Registration, FA 1522801 (Forum Nov. 19, 2013) (holding that because the respondent's website contained no content related to the domain name and instead generated the error message "Error 400, Bad Request," the respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in determining whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration, satisfies paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must consider all the circumstances of the respondent's conduct, and a finding of bad faith may be made where those circumstances show that the passive holding amounts to bad faith use). The particular circumstances considered by the Panel in this case include the following: i) Complainant has prominently and extensively used, promoted, and advertised the LEIDOS mark and domain names incorporating the mark, including LEIDOS.COM, for well over ten years. By virtue of these efforts, the LEIDOS mark has become well recognized by consumers as exclusively designating Complainant as the source of the goods and services offered under the LEIDOS mark; ii) The disputed domain name resolves to a "parked" page with links to the registrar's products and services promoting the registrar's services, for the content of which Respondent is ultimately responsible; iii) Respondent registered the disputed domain name by misrepresenting that its organization is "LEIDOS" and providing a fictitious mailing address using the state abbreviation "AE," a non-existent U.S. state; and iv) Respondent has failed to provide any evidence of any actual or contemplated bona fide use of the disputed domain name. In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant also argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LEIDOS mark. The Panel observes that the LEIDOS mark was widely recognized as uniquely identifying Complainant as the exclusive source of its goods and services prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. Given the notoriety of Complainant's mark, the Panel finds it reasonable to infer that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the LEIDOS mark at the time of registration. In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <leidoshr.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: March 2, 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.