NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Lu Xi
Claim Number: FA1412001595189
DOMAIN NAME
<lufthansa.xn--ses554g>
PARTIES
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany | |
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte
Hajo Rauschhofer of Wiesbaden, Germany
|
Respondent: Lu Xi of 未知, II, CN | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: XN--SES554G Registry | |
Registrars: 互联网域名系统北京市工程研究中心 |
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. | |
Anne M. Wallace, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: December 17, 2014 | |
Commencement: December 29, 2014 | |
Default Date: January 13, 2015 | |
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] |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has a registered trademark for the LUFTHANSA mark and has demonstrated the mark is in current use. The Disputed Domain Name <lufthansa.xnses554g or lufthansa.网址> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. The case does not disclose any applicable defences.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Prima facie, Respondent registered the domain appropriating Complainant's mark to suggest to the Internet user a connection between Respondent and Complainant's products. This is bad faith. 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:
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:
|
Anne M. Wallace Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page