Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. N/A
Claim Number: FA1503001608145
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.
Complainant Representative: Nadim Kashlan - Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte of Wiesbaden, Germany.
Respondent: N/A of Vina del Mar, Valparaiso, International, Chile.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: dot Science Limited
Registrars: Alpnames Limited
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: March 5, 2015
Commencement: March 5, 2015
Default Date: March 20, 2015
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the 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") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The Complainant at hand refers to the domain name <lufthansa.science> registered by Sebastian Encina of Viña del Mar, Valparaíso, Chile.
In accordance with the provisions of URS, Complainant claims (i) that the domain name <lufthansa.science> is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; (ii) that The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name, and (iii) that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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.
RIGHTS OVER AN IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR TRADEMARK
Complainant contends that LUFTHANSA is a famous and well-known trademark operating worldwide, being impossible to say that one does not know it. It adds that it is clear that someone who uses an identical trademark that evidently belongs to a third party to “build” a domain name where the only difference is the suffix .science, knows the trademark since it is impossible to coin an identical distinctive word by coincidence. Moreover, Respondent must have received a warning from the Trademark Clearing house, since the trademark Lufthansa has been listed at the Clearinghouse.
Complainant submitted evidence to demonstrate that it is the owner of the trademark LUFTHANSA, registered in a number of countries/regions, such as:
Community Trademark registration No. 001212539 LUFTHANSA (word), registered on February 2, 2001, and renewed until June 11, 2019, covering goods and services in Intl Classes 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 36, 37, 41 and 42.
International Trademark registration No. 722971 Lufthansa (word), registered on August 5, 1999, and renewed until August 5, 2019, covering goods and services in Intl Classes 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, and valid in Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belarus, Switzerland, China, Algeria, Egypt, Croatia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Liberia, Lesotho, Morocco, Monaco, Republic of Moldova, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Russian Federation, Sudan, Sierra Leone, San Marino, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Serbia and Montenegro, Georgia, Iceland, Norway, Turkey, Cuba.
U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1994296 dated August 20, 1996, presently in force, covering the following services of International Class 39: “Air, land and marine passenger and freight transportation services; travel booking agency services including making air, sea and land reservations; arranging travel tours and cruises for others; vehicle rental services; services of chartering aircraft or ships; cargo handling services; warehouse storage services and freight forwarding services”, first used in 1967.
The Complainant also submitted screenshots from the website www.lufthansa.com. and www.lufthansagroup.com to demonstrate use of the trademark LUFTHANSA.
Based on the foregoing the Examiner finds that the complaint meets the URS requirement of 1.2.6.1.
NO LEGITIMATE RIGHT OR INTEREST TO THE DOMAIN NAME
Complainant states that the Registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name because he did not authorize any usage of the trademark LUFTHANSA, and Respondent could not have included it within the domain name without permission from the legitimate holder. Claimant asserts that Respondent has no identical trademark nor offers related services, and thus, the Respondent’s domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
In this concern, the Examiner deems convenient to make certain remarks, as follows:
The Complainant contends that the trademark LUFTHANSA is famous and well-known. A famous or well-known trademark is the trademark that is known by the general public due to its intense use and longtime presence in the market, and for this reason enjoys a high degree of consumer recognition, due to its widespread reputation or recognition. Famous marks are generally accorded a broader scope of protection, which means that infringement may be easier to establish.
In the present case, the relevant part of the disputed domain name consists of the word <lufthansa>, which happens to be exactly the same registered trademark owned by the Complainant. Since the rest of the domain is the top-level domain .science – top-level domains being a necessary element of every domain name – the Examiner concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's famous and well-known trademark LUFTHANSA, which due to its recognition merits a special protection.
The Respondent does not have any rights in <lufthansa.science>, as the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register a domain name containing its registered and used trademark LUFTHANSA, nor is the Respondent commonly known by <lufthansa.science>. Moreover, since Respondent has defaulted, there is no evidence to establish any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in his favor.
In sum, since LUFTHANSA is a well-known trademark, the Examiner concludes that the Complainant has shown that the Respondent cannot have any legitimate interests in registering and using <lufthansa.science>, and therefore the complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2.
DOMAIN REGISTERED AND USED IN BAD FAITH
According to the URS Procedure 1.2.6.3, examples of circumstances that demonstrate bad faith registration and use by the Registrant include:
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.
In the present case Complainant asserts that It is indicated that bad faith exists where the Respondent, by using the domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website 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 its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location (WIPO No. D2006-0700). In the words of the Complainant, Respondent registered the domain name, appropriating the Complainant’s famous trademark, in order to suggest to the Internet user a connection between the Complainant’s products and Respondent’s domain which simply does not exist. This is misleading and supports finding of bad faith registration (WIPO No. D2005-0072).
Furthermore, Complainant claims that the disputed domain is connected with the LUFTHANSA mark combining the suffix “science”. As a meaning “science” refers to “knowledge”. Knowledge could mean information inside, about or related to Lufthansa. Lufthansa is involved in many scientific researches and innovation projects, developing new repair, test technologies, products, solutions or aircraft operations. In addition, Lufthansa offers special career opportunities such as degrees as Bachelor of Science. In conclusion, the Domain is confusing because internet users believe to access a site about scientific content of Lufthansa.
That quoted, the Examiner finds that considering that LUFTHANSA is a well-known trademark, with the domain name <lufthansa.science> Registrant has indeed intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to Registrant´s web site 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.
In light of the foregoing, the Examiner finds that the complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.3.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<Lufthansa.science>.
Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez, Examiner
Dated: March 25, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page