WIPO D2000-1015 · decided 26 January 2001
Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Dan Parisi
The parties
- Complainant
- Lockheed Martin Corporation
- Respondent
- Dan Parisi
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | A majority held lockheedsucks.com and lockheedmartinsucks.com not confusingly similar to the Lockheed Martin trademarks, because adding "sucks" clearly signals that the domain names are not affiliated with the trademark owner. |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel did not decide this element because Lockheed Martin failed on the first element, and the Policy requires a complainant to prove all three elements. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel did not decide this element because Lockheed Martin failed on the first element, and the Policy requires a complainant to prove all three elements. |
Why does Lockheedsucks matter for a complaint today?
In Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Dan Parisi, D2000-1015, a 2-1 majority of a three-member WIPO panel denied the complaint over lockheedsucks.com and lockheedmartinsucks.com. The majority held that a domain name combining a trademark with "sucks" cannot be confusingly similar to it, because the added word tells users the site is not affiliated with the trademark owner. It relied on United States court cases, including Bally Total Fitness v. Faber. The panel never reached legitimate interests or bad faith. The dissenting panelist warned that this approach would protect a registrant who adds "sucks" only to sell the domain name back to the trademark owner. For a business owner, this part of the decision is now mostly history. The WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.13, takes the opposite view: a "sucks" domain name is confusingly similar for standing purposes, and the merits are decided under the second and third elements. The Overview gives a reason close to the dissent's: otherwise appending "sucks" could take a bad faith case outside the UDRP. So a "sucks" domain name no longer fails at the first element. A genuine criticism site can still defeat a complaint on the second element, under section 2.6.
What does the WIPO Overview 3.1 say?
The WIPO Overview 3.1 summarises how WIPO panels decide each issue. These sections cover the same point of law.
- Section 1.13: Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term ("sucks cases") confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark? The Overview cites this decision here.
- Section 2.6: Does a criticism site support respondent rights or legitimate interests? The Overview cites this decision here.
Who decided the case?
A three-member panel decided the case on 26 January 2001: Dennis A Foster (presiding), Prof. David E Sorkin, David E. Wagoner (dissenting).
Read the decision
The full text is published by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. We summarise it here; the decision itself is the authority.
Summarised by Gergana Dimitrova. Checked against the published decision on 23 October 2026.
Someone has taken a domain that uses your brand?
The first assessment is free and comes back within 24 hours. If the case is weak we say so rather than take the fee.