NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS FINAL DETERMINATION


Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Kazim Uslu et al.
Claim Number: FA1412001593934


DOMAIN NAME

<lufthansa.help>


PARTIES


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

   Respondent: Kazim Uslu Kazim Uslu of Salzburg, II, Austria
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Uniregistry, Corp.
   Registrars: Dynadot, LLC

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.
   Kendall C. Reed, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: December 8, 2014
   Commencement: December 8, 2014
   Response Date: December 22, 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 


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


[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 


The Respondent is offering the domain name for sale generally and not specifically to the Complainant, and as such Respondent’s use does not strictly fall within the scope of Policy paragraph 1.2.6.3.a. Further, Respondent is not currently using the domain name to resolve to any website, and as such the Respondent’s use does not strictly fall within the scope Policy paragraph 1.2.6.3.d. However, the circumstances enumerated in Policy paragraph 1.2.6.3. are non-exclusive, and as such the panel may find bad faith in circumstances other than those enumerated. This Panel concludes that it is not conceivable for the domain name to be used by anyone other than the Complainant to resolve to any website such that the use would not fall within the scope of Policy paragraph 1.2.6.3.d. This Panel concludes that on these facts the Respondent’s use of the domain name is in bad faith under the Policy.


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. 

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.help

 


Kendall C. Reed
Examiner
Dated: December 31, 2014

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page