URS FINAL DETERMINATION


Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. et al.
Claim Number: FA1610001700646


DOMAIN NAME

<lufthansa.shop>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany
  
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte of Wiesbaden, Germany

   Respondent: Muhammet Ali Özer of Offenbach am Main, Germany
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: GMO Registry, Inc.
   Registrars: Name.com, Inc.

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.
   Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: October 31, 2016
   Commencement: November 2, 2016
   Response Date: November 2, 2016
   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:  
      Multiple Complainants: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants
      Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents

   Findings of Fact: The Complainant claimed that LUFTHANSA is a famous and well-known trademark. The Complainant also asserted that LUFTHANSA is operating worldwide and being impossible to say that does not know LUFTHANSA trademark. The complainant claimed that the respondent has no legitimate right or interest on the domain name and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

  

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:
  (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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is identical to the word mark “LUFTHANSA” for which the Complainant holds valid regional registration and that are in current use.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent for use of the “LUFTHANSA” trademark. The Respondent accepted that he has not legitimate interest for usage of the “LUFTHANSA” trademark. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain name.


[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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Given the well-known status of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent was clearly well aware of the Complainant and of its rights on the trademark when it registered the domain name. On the other hand he accepted the violation of the registration of the domain name. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name 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.

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

Given the well-known status of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent was clearly well aware of the Complainant and of its rights on the trademark when it registered the domain name. On the other hand he accepted the violation of the registration of the domain name. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.


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:

  1. lufthansa.shop

 


Ahmet Akguloglu
Examiner
Dated: November 7, 2016

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page