Leios-support.net

The timeline behind leios-support.net

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. Jennifer Shannon Claim Number: FA2602002204929 PARTIES Complainant is Leidos, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Kandis M. Koustenis of Bean Kinney & Korman, PC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Jennifer Shannon ("Respondent"), Florida, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <leios-support.net>, 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. Adam Taylor 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, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <leios-support.net> 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 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@leios-support.net. 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. Having received no 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 Adam Taylor 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 Complainant contends that it has rights in the LEIDOS mark based upon registration of its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; on the contrary, Respondent is using the disputed domain name for phishing or other fraud. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use Complainant's mark. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark is evidenced by its distinctiveness and fame. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name for email phishing and an apparent website phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Since 2013, Complainant has supplied technology solutions to governments and commercial customers under the mark LEIDOS. Complainant owns various registered trademarks for LEIDOS, including Reg. No. 4,937,101, registered with the USPTO on April 12, 2016. Complainant operates a website at www.leidos.com. The disputed domain name was registered on January 23, 2026. On the same day, the disputed domain name was used as part of phishing campaign whereby 446 emails with this domain name were sent to Complainant's users. As of February 5, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to a "Launching Soon" web page that included a contact form with an option to sign up for "updates, promotions, and more". 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 Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the LEIDOS mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The disputed domain name consists of, first, an intentional misspelling of Complainant's trademark in that it omits the letter "d". Such variations are considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.9. The disputed domain name also includes the word "support". It is well established under the Policy that the incorporation of a recognizable version of complainant's mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity, even when combined with additional terms. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.") Therefore, the Panel finds 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); then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See 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 fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use. As discussed under the third element below, the Panel considers that Respondent has used the disputed domain name for phishing or other fraudulent purposes. Such activity is plainly not bona fide. Nor does it qualify as legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Forum June 12, 2006) (holding that the respondent's use of the <allianzcorp.biz> domain name to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users seeking Complainant's financial services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Jennifer Shannon" and there is no other information on the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The provisions set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are merely illustrative. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are mere illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent's bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances). Complainant has supplied evidence that Respondent has used the disputed domain name for phishing or other fraudulent purposes. Such activity constitutes registration and use in bad faith. See Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (finding that respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users through a confusingly similar domain name). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered, and is using, 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 <leios-support.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Adam Taylor, 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.