Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. luo chun yuan et al.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS FINAL DETERMINATION

Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. luo chun yuan et al.
Claim Number: FA1412001593930

DOMAIN NAME

<lufthansa.top>

PARTIES

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

	Respondent: none chunyuan luo of wenling, China

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.
	Registrars: 厦门三五互联

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.
	Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: December 8, 2014
	Commencement: December 9, 2014
	Response Date: December 20, 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

Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, 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

The registered domain name is identical to Complainant's well-known trade mark, LUFTHANSA.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Respondent has made no use of the domain name and has failed to adduce any evidence to establish any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

[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

Given the notoriety of Complainant's trade mark, LUFTHANSA, and the fact the domain name is identical to Complainant's mark, the Panel finds Respondent must have known of Complainant and of its rights in the LUFTHANSA trade mark when it registered the domain name. In its Response, Respondent claims not to be aware of Complainant's LUFTHANSA trade mark, declares Respondent has no intention to infringe Complainant's intellectual property rights, states that the domain name has not been used, and invites Complainant to negotiate a "good way" to resolve the dispute. The Panel finds the Response unconvincing, and is fortified, by the contents of the Response, in making a finding of bad faith registration and use.

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.

Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

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:

lufthansa.top

Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes
Examiner
Dated: December 23, 2014

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page