NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Philippe CHESNEL
Claim Number: FA1406001566251


DOMAIN NAME

<lufthansa.onl>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany
  
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte Dr. Hajo Rauschhofer of Wiesbaden, Germany

   Respondent: Philippe CHESNEL of Vicq, II, FR
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: I-Registry Ltd.
   Registrars: Gandi SAS (R3216-AGRS)

EXAMINER


   The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
   Carol Stoner Esq., as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: June 24, 2014
   Commencement: June 24, 2014
   Default Date: July 9, 2014
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

RELIEF SOUGHT


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW


   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION


   Procedural Findings:  
      Multiple Complainants: No Complainants and no domain names are to be dismissed from this Complaint.
      Multiple Respondents: No Respondents and no domain names are to be dismissed from this Complaint.

   Findings of Fact: Examiner has determined that Complainant has presented clear and convincing evidence regarding its registration and use of LUFTHANSA and its non-licensing of such mark to Registrant.

  

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.


[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Examiner has determined that Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that Complainant prevailed upon URS 1.2.6.1(i), in that the registered domain name lufthansa.onl is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's wordmark LUFTHANSA, for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use. Respondent offered no defense.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Examiner has determined that Complainant has offered clear and convincing evidence to prove, in accordance with URS 1.2.6.2, that Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name lufthansa.onl. Respondent offered no defense.


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or 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 documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Examiner has determined that Complainant has offered clear and convincing evidence to prove that the domain name lufthansa.onl was registered and is being used in bad faith, in accordance with URS 1.2.6.3. Respondent offered no defense.


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

Complainant submitted no evidence or arguments which Examiner found to constitute material falsehoods, or to be an abuse of this proceeding. Registrant did not respond to the Complaint.


DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. lufthansa.onl

 

Carol Stoner Esq.
Examiner
Dated: July 9, 2014

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page