U.S. defense contractor tries reverse hijacking open.space

Panelist rules against defense contractor, but domain registrant decides to change his project’s name.

A major U.S. defense contractor tried to reverse hijack the domain name open.space, a UDRP panelist has ruled.

Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: KTOS) is a $14 billion market cap defense contractor. It has a satellite ground system platform called OpenSpace.

Last year, Martin McCormick registered open.space to create an open-source communications initiative targeting amateur (“ham”) radio operators.

Kratos argued this was cybersquatting and filed a dispute under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Its arguments ran into several roadblocks, including that McCormick was using the domain in its descriptive sense.

Panelist David L. Kreider noted:

The Panel further notes that the terms “open” and “space” are common, generic English dictionary words. The combination “open.space” is descriptively apt for a project that is “open” (i.e., open-source) and relates to “space” (i.e., space communications). The website’s tagline, “Open Source meets Outer Space,” confirms this descriptive intent.

Kreider found that Kratos failed to show two requirements to win the case: that the registrant lacks rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain was registered and used in bad faith.

He also determined that Kratos filed the case in bad faith, constituting reverse domain name hijacking:

First, Complainant’s own evidence refuted its own allegations. Complainant asserted in the Complaint that “since registration of the Domain Name on June 27, 2025, Respondent has made no good faith use of the Domain Name.” Yet Complainant’s own Annex 6—the screenshots of Respondent’s website captured and submitted by Complainant—plainly demonstrates that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an active, substantive website hosting an open-source hardware initiative for amateur radio operators. The website displays detailed product specifications, photographs of physical hardware, pricing, and an expected ship date. A complainant represented by experienced trademark counsel should be expected to review its own exhibits before making allegations that are directly contradicted by those exhibits.

Second, Complainant characterised Respondent’s website as displaying “Complainant’s OPENSPACE Mark . . . without authorization, and in connection with space communications equipment, which is related to, and/or directly competitive with, Complainant’s goods and services.” This characterisation is misleading. Respondent’s website uses the words “Open” and “Space” descriptively as the name of its own project—”Open Source meets Outer Space”—not as a reference to Complainant’s trademark. The website offers DIY phased array kits for amateur radio hobbyists, not enterprise satellite ground station software. Describing these products as “related to, and/or directly competitive with” Complainant’s multi-million-dollar defense and satellite offerings is a substantial overstatement of the overlap between the parties’ respective activities bordering on the absurd.

Third, Complainant’s OPENSPACE mark is composed entirely of two common English dictionary words. While Complainant is entitled to enforce its registered trademark against confusingly similar uses within its field of goods and services, it cannot reasonably claim exclusive rights over the combination of the words “open” and “space” in connection with all space-related activities. Complainant’s attempt to wrest a domain composed of generic dictionary words from a registrant with a demonstrably legitimate project in an unrelated market—on the basis of evidence that Complainant itself submitted and that contradicts the Complaint’s own allegations—falls below the standard of good faith expected of parties invoking the Policy.  It is, as Respondent asserts, “a textbook case of trademark overreach”.

Going up against a $14 billion defense contract is no easy business, however. McCormick has changed the project’s name to MoonRF.

In a March 27 blog post, he wrote:

It appears the military-industrial complex has successfully trademarked the vacuum of space. The Earth-Moon-Earth radio project just got a trademark takedown from Kratos Defense. Apparently, our domain name (open·space) is a little too close to their classified military satellite software.

Naming a closed orbital weapons network “OPENSPACE” is slightly ironic, but rather than fighting SkyNet’s lawyers, I’m saving the energy for our upcoming Crowd Supply launch.

They can have the vacuum of space. We’ll have the moon.

Effective immediately, the moon-bounce project is now MoonRF!

Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves and Savitch LLP represented Kratos.