Leidosbenefits.com

The timeline behind leidosbenefits.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. Akiva Wagner Claim Number: FA2602002204925 PARTIES Complainant is Leidos, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Kandis M. Koustenis of Bean Kinney & Korman, PC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Akiva Wagner ("Respondent"), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <leidosbenefits.com>, registered with Squarespace Domains LLC. 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. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 11, 2026; Forum received payment on February 11, 2026. On February 12, 2026, Squarespace Domains LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <leidosbenefits.com> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains 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 February 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 5, 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@leidosbenefits.com. Also on February 13, 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. Respondent sent an informal reply to Forum which is described below. Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 6, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER On February 13, 2026, the date on which Respondent was served with the Written Notice of Complaint by Forum received an email from Respondent stating: I am the registrant of <leidosbenefits.com> in the matter Leidos, Inc. v. Akiva Wagner (FA2602002204925). I confirm that I do not wish to contest this proceeding and consent to the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant. Please advise on next steps to complete the transfer. Respondent has put forward any defenses to the claims made by Complainant and has availed of a privacy service to conceal its identity. Furthermore, the Panel finds below, the disputed domain name was registered with Complainant's mark in mind to take predatory advantage of the goodwill in the LEIDOS mark. Neither has Complainant withdrawn the Complaint. In these circumstances the Panel considers that in the interest of fairness and expedition it is appropriate to proceed to consider and decide the Complaint. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant claims rights in the LEIDOS trademark and service mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described below and extensive use of the mark in its business providing technical services. Complainant submits that 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, it is submitted the LEIDOS mark has become well recognized by consumers as exclusively designating Complainant as the source of the goods and services offered under the mark including on its websites. Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name <leidosbenefits.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the LEIDOS mark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is a complete and exact reproduction of Complainant's LEIDOS mark and merely adds the generic term "benefits." It is argued that the mere addition of "BENEFITS" is a minor difference and insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's LEIDOS mark. See R.R Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 2193434 (Forum Jan. 16, 2026) (holding that the addition of "benefits," a generic term, to complainant's mark was confusingly similar to complainant's mark). Secondly, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that: · Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; · Based on the WHOIS information, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; and it is established that WHOIS information can support the finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and therefore has no rights or legitimate interests in a domain at issue under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) as in Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent was not commonly known by the domain name). · Respondent has not sought or received permission to use Complainant's mark, see Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., WIPO Case D2000-0020 (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent was not commonly known by the domain name and never sought permission to use Complainant's mark); · Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the Domain Name resolves to an inactive website that displays the error message "It looks like you're lost…" followed by another error message "The page you are looking for is not found." See Cencora, Inc. v. John Drill, FA 2188850 (Forum Dec. 12, 2025) ("A Respondent failing to make use of a confusingly similar domain name in relation to a website typically indicates a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."). Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing that: Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 17, 2025, long after Complainant registered the LEIDOS mark with the USPTO and long after Complainant began using the LEIDOS mark. LEIDOS is an arbitrary term with no meaning other than to identify Complainant as the exclusive source of certain products and services, and Complainant has used the LEIDOS mark, which is well known to consumers, in association with its goods and services for more than ten years. Therefore, it is most likely that Respondent chose the disputed domain name with the intention of imitating Complainant's well-known LEIDOS mark. Moreover, Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name serves as additional evidence of bad faith registration for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The screen capture described above shows that the disputed domain name generates an error page; and does not resolve to any active website. See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA 1608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) ("Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). There is no evidence of Respondent ever having actively used the confusingly similar disputed domain name for any purpose. Thus, Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use."). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant is a provider of technical services in which it uses the LEIDOS mark for which it holds the following portfolio of registrations: · United States registered service mark LEIDOS, registration number 4,937,101, registered on the Principal Register on April 12, 2016 for services in international classes 35, 41, and 42. · United States registered service mark LEIDOS, registration number 5,257,665, registered on the Principal Register on Aug. 01, 2017 for services in international classes 37, 38, 39 and 41; · United States registered trademark LEIDOS, registration number 5,475,704, registered on the Principal Register on May 22, 2018 for goods in international class 9. Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains its principal website at <leidos.com> on which it promotes its business. The disputed domain name <leidosbenefits.com> was registered on October 17, 2025, and is being passively held by Respondent. There is no information available about Respondent who availed of a privacy service to conceal their identity, except for the email sent by Respondent on February 13, 2026 (described above), the information in the Complaint, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding. 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 3.0 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 has provided convincing evidence that rights in the LEIDOS mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registered trademarks and service marks described above. The disputed domain name <leidosbenefits.com> consists of Complainant's mark in its entirety in combination with the generic term "benefits". It is well established that when, as in the present case, a domain name at issue contains a complainant's mark in its entirety a panel may make a finding of confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. The word "benefits" does not take from the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark, and in the circumstances of this case the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> may be ignored for the purposes of comparison as it would be considered by Internet users to the a technical necessity for a domain name. This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <leidosbenefits.com> is confusingly similar to the LEIDOS mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. In particular, the record shows that Respondent has not asserted any claims to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in her communication with Forum on February 13, 2026, the date on which Respondent was served with the Written Notice of Complaint by the Forum. It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith LEIDOS is an arbitrary term with no meaning other than to identify Complainant as the exclusive source of certain products and services. The uncontested evidence shows that Complainant has held registered trademark and service mark rights long before the disputed domain name was registered on registered on October 17, 2025. The earliest service mark registration for the LEIDOS mark, relied upon by Complainant was registered on April 12, 2016. While Complainant claims that it 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, it has not produced any evidence of its claimed use of the mark. Neither has it shown any evidence of its ownership or use of its domain name <leidos.com>. However, Complainant has declared in the application process leading to its registration of service mark 4,937,101 on April 12, 2016, that its first use of the mark in commerce was September 27, 2013. Notwithstanding the lack of evidence of Complainant's claimed use of the LEIDOS mark, and taking into account that Respondent has not responded to the Complaint, and that Complainant's claimed use of the mark since September 2013, has not been challenged, the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that Complainant has in fact used the mark since 2013. Given the distinctive and arbitrary character of the LEIDOS mark, and taking into account that Respondent claims to be established in the United States of America, this Panel finds disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with Complainant's mark in mind in order to take predatory advantage of Complainant's goodwill and reputation. Complainant has produced a screen capture which shows that the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website, but to an error page. The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, ("WIPO Overview 3.01") at paragraph 3.3 addresses the issue of passive holding of a domain name at issue in the following terms: "From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" page) would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panelists have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's taking active steps to conceal its identity, or (iv) use of false or inaccurate contact details (noted to be in breach of its the registrant's registration agreement)." The passive holding of the disputed domain name in the context of the present complaint reveals that (i) LEIDOS is a distinctive mark; (ii) Respondent has failed to submit a Response or to provide any evidence or actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name; (iii) Respondent took active steps to reveal their identity on the published WhoIs by availing of a privacy protection service. The Panel has taken the above factors into consideration, to assess the overall plausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put. The Panel finds that notwithstanding the lack of evidence of Complainant's reputation or that Respondent has used false or inaccurate contact details (noted to be in breach of its the registrant's registration agreement), in light of the composition of the disputed domain name being a combination of Complainant's mark and a generic term, and the distinctive and arbitrary character of the LEIDOS mark, also given that there is no evidence of any good faith or legitimate use of the mark by Respondent, and that Respondent purports to be established in the USA, it is implausible that Respondent could use the disputed domain name for a non-infringing purpose. The Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities the passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. As the Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in 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 <leidosbenefits.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James Bridgeman SC Panelist Dated: March 9, 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.