URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. An Rui Cheng

Claim Number: FA1506001621938

 

DOMAIN NAME

<staralliance.top>

 

PARTIES

Complainant:  Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.

Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte of Wiesbaden, Germany.

 

Respondent:  An Rui Cheng of Shen Zhen, SZ, International, cn.

Respondent Representative:  «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registries:  Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.

Registrars:  Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.

 

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.

 

Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: June 1, 2015

Commencement: June 2, 2015    

Default Date: June 17, 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") .

 

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:

No multiple complainants or respondents and no extraneous domain names require dismissal.

Findings of Fact:

The Complainant, Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany, is one of the world leading airlines, which operates worldwide. It is a founder of “StarAlliance” which is the world’s first and largest airline alliance worldwide.

The Complainant holds a valid registration for the STAR ALLIANCE word mark (WIPO registration No. 674914, registration date: May 2, 1997).


The trademark STAR ALLIANCE is well-known throughout the world.

 

 

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.

 

IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR

The disputed domain name, <staralliance.top> is identical to the Complainant's STAR ALLIANCE trademark since it incorporates the word mark in its entirety. In addition, it is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus the “.top” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825).

The Examiner finds that the Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1. of URS Procedure – the Complainant proved that it holds a valid trademark (WIPO registration No. 674914). Further, the Complainant confirmed that the registered trademark is in current use by presenting screenshots from the Complainant’s website (www.staralliance.com).

NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS

According to the Complainant’s, the Respondent has no intellectual property rights in name “StarAlliance” nor it offers similar services to the Complainant’s. The Complainant has neither licensed nor authorized Respondent to use STAR ALLIANCE trademark or register a domain name containing this trademark.

In the absence of any counter arguments and evidences in support of the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interest, the Examiner finds that the second element under URS Procedure 1.2.6.2 has been satisfied.

BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE

According to WhoIs database, the disputed domain names was registered on May 23, 2015 whereas the STAR ALLIANCE trademark was registered on May 2, 1997 and since then is commonly know all over the word. Therefore, the Respondent had known or should have known about the STAR ALLIANCE trademark. In the light of this, registering a domain name corresponding to a famous and reputable trademark, and subsequent passive holding of such a domain, thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain, is viewed by the Examiner as bad faith.

 

The Respondent has not submitted any evidences confirming circumstances listed in URS Procedure 5.7. In the absence of any defense which might have affected the decision on this issue, it is found that the third element of the policy under URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 has been satisfied.

 

 

DETERMINATION

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.

<staralliance.top>

 

 

Piotr Nowaczyk, Examiner

Dated:  June 17, 2015

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page