NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS FINAL DETERMINATION
Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Andre Colpron et al.
Claim Number: FA1502001606617
DOMAIN NAME
<staralliance.energy>
PARTIES
| Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany | |
|
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte
Nadim Kashlan of Wiesbaden, Germany
|
| Respondent: Star Alliance Energy Management Inc. Robert Bédard of Terrebonne, PQ, Canada | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
| Registries: Binky Birch, LLC | |
| Registrars: Godaddy 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. | |
| Darryl C. Wilson, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
| Complainant Submitted: February 25, 2015 | |
| Commencement: February 25, 2015 | |
| Response Date: March 3, 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
| Procedural Findings: | ||
| Multiple Complainants: Not applicable. | ||
| Multiple Respondents: Not applicable. | ||
| Findings of Fact: “StarAlliance”, headquartered in Frankfurt/Germany, is the world’s first and largest airline alliance, and conducts business on a global basis. The STAR ALLIANCE network offers more than 16,500 daily flights to 912 destinations in 159 countries. Complainant owns numerous domestic and international registrations in multiple business and scientific classes, for the mark STAR ALLIANCE which it has used continuously since at least as early as 1996. Respondent is a Canadian company whose corporate registration identifies it specifically as Star Alliance Energy Management Inc., which was established in or around 2004. Respondent says that it provides advisory and management services in the energy industry. Complainant alleged that Respondent's IP address is used to host more than 400 websites. Respondent did not address Complainant's assertion in its response. Respondent indicated the disputed domain is a convenient and aesthetic way to refer to its longer corporate name and believes the top level domain, "energy", sufficiently sets them apart from the Complainant. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in or around February 2015. |
|
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence for this element. Complainant holds valid national and regional registrations (CTM) for its mark which is also protected via Madrid. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence for this element. Respondent has not provided any evidence that is has any legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not shown that it has used or been commonly recognized by the disputed domain name nor has it received authorization from Complainant to use its mark.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence for this element. Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to suggest to the Internet user a connection between the Complainant’s products/services and the Respondent’s domain which simply does not exist. This is misleading and supports a finding of bad faith registration. Even if a website provides no content, as in this case, "under construction", passively holding a domain name can be interpreted as bad faith. Based on URS 1.2.6.3 (d) Respondent's actions demonstrate registration and use in 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. 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:
Respondent's allegation of abuse or falsehood is unsupported by any facts. Respondent merely asserts that "many existing domain names contain the words star and alliance...." and also claims two sites are in existence that use star alliance together in internet domain names. To the extent any of this is true it does not excuse Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's mark. Respondent needs more than mere allegations of some third party action to support a finding that Complainant has abused the this proceeding. Respondent fails to indicate any alleged 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:
|
Darryl C. Wilson
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page