Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Zong Kai
Claim Number: FA1509001639608
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte of Wiesbaden, Germany.
Respondent: Zong Kai of Shang Hai Shi, Shang Hai, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: unrepresented.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registry: DotOnline Inc.
Registrar: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Debrett Gordon Lyons as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: September 28, 2015
Commencement: September 28, 2015
Default Date: October 14, 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.
Findings of Fact:
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires the 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 126.96.36.199.] The registered domain name is 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.
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is the registered owner of International Trademark Reg. No. 674914, registered from May 2, 1997, for the trademark STAR ALLIANCE, as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark and merely adds the extension “.online”. It is well established that the addition of a domain name extension can be ignored when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between trademark and disputed domain name. Further, the loss of punctuation is trivial.
The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that URS Procedure 188.8.131.52 is satisfied.
[184.108.40.206.] The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is not in use.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name, that Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name, that Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and that there has been no bona fide use of the domain name.
The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, URS Procedure 220.127.116.11 is satisfied.
[18.104.22.168.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that Respondent targeted Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
Absent a response there is no plausible reason to find registration of the disputed domain name by Respondent in good faith. There has been no actual use of the domain name but the Examiner is satisfied that this is a case of “passive holding in bad faith” and therefore use in bad faith.
The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, URS Procedure 22.214.171.124 is satisfied.
No abuse or material falsehood.
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.
Debrett Gordon Lyons, Examiner
Dated: October 17, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page