General Dynamics Corporation is a mighty giant in the aerospace and combat systems. The GENERAL DYNAMICS mark was established in 1952 and it’s been registered with the USPTO 20+ years ago.
The company filed a UDRP against the domain name GeneralDynamics.net, a domain registered in November 2024 by a Turkish person. It’s noteworthy that that Complainant operates from GeneralDynamics.com which forwards to GD.com.
In their Response, the Respondent used a novel approach: The words “General Dynamics” refer to a physics term and the domain is thus generic. The Forum panelist, surprisingly, stated that there is no proof that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant when they registered the domain; that their use of the domain (“for sale”) is legitimate, and that the Complainant thus failed to establish two of the three points needed to succeed in this case.
Final decision: Deny the transfer of the domain GeneralDynamics.net to the Complainant.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.DECISION
General Dynamics Corporation v. mehmet sahin
Claim Number: FA2412002129316
PARTIES
Complainant is General Dynamics Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Michael Justus of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is mehmet sahin (“Respondent”), Turkey.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is generaldynamics.net, registered with Dynadot 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.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 12, 2024. Forum received payment on December 12, 2024.
On December 13, 2024, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the generaldynamics.net domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc 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 December 13, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 2, 2025 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@generaldynamics.net. Also on December 13, 2024, 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.
On December 13 and 14, 2024, Respondent communicated informally by e-mail to Forum.
On December 17, 2024, an Additional Submission was received from Complainant, in response to Respondent’s informal communications.
A timely informal Response was received on January 2, 2025.
On January 3, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant, General Dynamics Corporation, (together with its affiliates) is a global aerospace and defense company that specializes in high-end design, engineering and manufacturing to deliver state-of-the-art solutions to its customers. It consists of 10 business units, which are organized into four operating segments: Aerospace, Marine Systems, Combat Systems and Technologies. Complainant is a publicly traded company (NYSE: GD) and one of the largest defense contractors to the U.S. government.
Complainant and its predecessors and affiliates have used the well-known GENERAL DYNAMICS marks since at least as early as 1952. Complainant’s official website is located at “www.generaldynamics.com”, which redirects to “www.gd.com”. The generaldynamics.com domain name has been used by Complainant in connection with its official website under its GENERAL DYNAMICS mark for over 25 years.
Respondent’s generaldynamics.net domain name is identical to Complainant’s GENERAL DYNAMICS trademark, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the generaldynamics.net domain name, which blatantly copies Complainant’s distinctive, well-known, and registered marks, for an unlawful scheme to sell the domain name for profit. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s GENERAL DYNAMICS mark and has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent failed to provide a real and genuine identity. The WHOIS information for the domain name lists the registrant’s name as a privacy service. This failure to provide a real identity and contact information is evidence that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the domain name resolves to a page offering the domain name for sale for USD 3,000 – a sum in excess of any out-of-pocket costs that could have been incurred by Respondent in connection with the registration of the domain name.
Respondent registered and is using the generaldynamics.net domain name in bad faith, as it deliberately registered a domain name that is an intentional copy of Complainant’s GENERAL DYNAMICS mark to unfairly profit. Respondent also does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name to connect to a page offering the domain name for sale. There is simply no explanation for a third party to register a domain name that comprises Complainant’s well-known international brand and offer it for sale, except the intention to capitalize on Complainant’s reputation in its mark.
B. Respondent
Our main and the only important defense point is that GENERAL DYNAMICS is a fully generic/descriptive phrase, namely it is a math subject and math course name. In math there are few main subjects, like algebra, analysis, topology, geometry, arithmetic, dynamical systems (aka dynamics). No one studies such broad subjects, usually topic names are made from such words, like Algebraic Geometry, General topology, Statistical mechanics, Fourier Analysis, Arithmetic Dynamics. GENERAL DYNAMICS is a topic just like the above.
It is fully legitimate to try to sell a generic domain via public listing (not bad faith).
Aerodynamics is a subset of general dynamics, which is the study of how objects move and interact with each other in a physical environment. Aerodynamics focuses specifically on the motion of objects in a fluid environment, while general dynamics covers a wider range of physical systems.
So general dynamics is the study of how objects move and interact with each other in a physical environment and of course this concept existed long before someone picked up this concept as their brand.
We didn’t know a company named General Dynamics when registering this domain (and it doesn’t matter), but we knew that it is a generic word familiar to us, and a high-quality word (number of registrations etc). We don’t expect a big company to use a .net domain, so the target of the Dynadot listing is not Complainant, there is no hint in that direction, and the price comes from ChatGPT estimates (chosen in bulk, several domains priced 3000 USD on that day, nothing special to this domain).
The main/essential part of the defense is that GENERAL DYNAMICS is a fully generic well-known and established math topic and not a fanciful word at all.
C. Additional Submissions
Complainant
Pursuant to Forum Supp. Rule 7, Complainant submits this supplemental statement in response to Respondent’s several email submissions of December 13-14, 2024. In those emails, Respondent refers to an apparent history of other UDRP cases filed against it. Indeed, a cursory search on the WIPO website for “mehmet sahin” returns four recent UDRP decisions, all ordering transfer of the domains from Respondent to the complainant. See Kaizen Gaming International Limited v. Mehmet Sahin, Case No. D2024-2502 (WIPO Aug. 12, 2024); Sodexo v. Mehmet Sahin, Case No. D2024-1468 (WIPO July 1, 2024); Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v. mehmet sahin and Ali Sahin, Case No. D2023-0947 (WIPO May 8, 2023); International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) v. mehmet sahin, Case No. D2023-2238 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2023). Those other cases involved other well-known marks like TRAVELEX and IBM. This pattern of Respondent’s cybersquatting confirms Respondent’s bad faith use and registration of the generaldynamics.net domain name. See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants). Against this factual backdrop, Respondent’s “explanations” ring hollow for registering a domain name comprised of Complainant’s identical, well-known GENERAL DYNAMICS trademark.
FINDINGS
Complainant has not established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii)the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the GENERAL DYNAMICS mark through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. Nos. 2,683,104 registered on February 4, 2003 and 7,425,690, registered on June 25, 2024).
The Panel finds Respondent’s generaldynamics.net domain name to be identical to Complainant’s GENERAL DYNAMICS mark, since the inconsequential “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The generaldynamics.net domain name was registered on November 20, 2024, many years after the registration of Complainant’s well-known mark. It resolves to a Registrar parking page where it is offered for sale to the general public for USD 3,000.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the generaldynamics.net domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
Respondent contends that GENERAL DYNAMICS is a fully generic well-known and established math topic, and not a fanciful word. Whether or not this is so, the Panel accepts that Complainant’s GENERAL DYNAMICS mark, albeit well-known and distinctive in Complainant’s field of activities, is a combination of two common generic words, capable of use otherwise than as a trademark in Complainant’s field of activities.
The critical issue in this case is whether Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name have targeted Complainant’s mark. As in Allocation Network GmbH v. Steve Gregory, WIPO Case No. D2000-0016 March 24, 2000):
“The question to be answered is whether the offering for sale of the domain name allocation.com as such can be considered use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services in accordance with Article 4c (i) on which ground Respondent would have a legitimate interest in this domain name.”
Buying and selling domain names has become an established practice in the years since the introduction of the Policy and is not per se a violation of the Policy. See The Clash of Trademarks and Domain Names on the Internet by Gerald M. Levene, Chapter 16 and particularly at page 699.
The Panel considers Respondent’s asking price for the domain name of USD 3,000 does not demonstrate targeting of Complainant. This is discussed in more detail below.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that, before any notice to Respondent of this dispute, Respondent has used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services by offering the domain name for sale to the general public for an asking price of USD 3,000. This establishes legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy under paragraph 4(c)(i).
Complainant has not established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Complainant relies on paragraph 4(b)(i), namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.
The Panel makes no finding as to whether or not Respondent was aware of Complainant and its GENERAL DYNAMICS mark when Respondent registered the generaldynamics.net domain name.
Even assuming that Respondent was so aware, the Panel is not satisfied that Respondent was targeting Complainant or its mark and was engaged in “an unlawful scheme to sell the domain name for profit” by offering the domain name to the general public for an asking price of USD 3,000. Although that asking price was most likely in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name, USD 3,000 is unlikely to reflect the greater value to Complainant or one of its competitors of the domain name. Accordingly, the Panel is not satisfied that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant or to a competitor of Complainant, nor to capitalize on Complainant’s reputation in its mark.
Complainant points to a pattern of Respondent’s cybersquatting to confirm Respondent’s bad faith use and registration of the generaldynamics.net domain name, citing Kaizen Gaming International Limited v. Mehmet Sahin, Case No. D2024-2502 (WIPO Aug. 12, 2024); Sodexo v. Mehmet Sahin, Case No. D2024-1468 (WIPO July 1, 2024); Travellers Exchange Corporation Limited v. mehmet sahin and Ali Sahin, Case No. D2023-0947 (WIPO May 8, 2023); and International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) v. mehmet sahin, Case No. D2023-2238 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2023).
In D2024-2502, Respondent’s asking price was USD 20,000. The panel found:
“The Respondent’s offering the Domain Name for sale at a substantial price, and its admission that it listed the Domain Name for sale with a view to maximizing the price it obtained, supports a finding that it was seeking to profit from the association of the Domain Name with the Complainant’s Mark”.
The other three cited cases are not relevant to paragraph 4(b)(i) because the domain names were not offered for sale but resolved to websites with pay-per click links.
The Panel is not prepared to find that Respondent acted in bad faith in this case merely because it has been found to have done so in previous cases.
Complainant has not established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the generaldynamics.net domain name be REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: January 7, 2025
