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:
  (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.

Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1 of the URS Procedure since the Complainant, a worldwide known airline and aviation-related business, proved its rights to the mark based on valid national German, CTM, US registrations and international registrations under the Madrid Agreement. The case records show that the trademark is in current use. The added top-level domain “one” is irrelevant for assessing whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The Examiner thus finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s “Lufthansa” trademark.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Complainant has never granted an authorization to Respondent to use the “Lufthansa” sign in its activities, particularly in domain names. Respondent has no trademark rights to the relevant sign, nor does it offer relevant services under the subject trademark. The records show that there are sufficient grounds to presume that such a registration of the disputed domain name was made for commercial gain seeking to benefit from the goodwill related to Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Thus, Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  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.

Complainant satisfied the requirements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3. Previous Panels have often found bad faith in circumstances where it is unlikely that the registrant would have selected the Domain Name without knowing about the fame and reputation of the well-known trademark corresponding to the domain name in question. See. Harrods Limited v. Walter Trautner, WIPO Case no. D2001-1164 (“…Given the HARRODS Mark’s reputation, the Panel finds it unlikely that (i) Respondent could commercially use the Domain Name without violating Complainant’s trademark right under either German or English law, and that (ii) Respondent would have selected the Domain Name without knowing of the reputation of that mark.”). The degree of fame associated with the “Lufthansa” trademark excludes any presumption that the choice of the domain name could have been incidental. The case records also show that there is a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark and the source. Previous UDRP and URS Panels have found bad faith when it is clear that 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. Thus, it is believed that there are clear and convincing evidences on the record in support of bad faith.

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

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:

lufthansa.one

	Complainant Submitted: November 24, 2015
	Commencement: November 25, 2015
	Default Date: December 10, 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: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany
	Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte Hajo Rauschhofer of Wiesbaden, Germany

	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.
	Ms. Natalia Stetsenko, as Examiner

	Respondent: petri salo of turku, II, FI

	Registries: One.com A/S
	Registrars: One.com