URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Lord Oxford
Claim Number: FA1703001721378
DOMAIN NAME
<lufthansa.link>
PARTIES
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany | |
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte of Wiesbaden, Germany
|
Respondent: Lord Oxford of Brisbane, qld, II, AU | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Uniregistry, Corp. | |
Registrars: Uniregistrar Corp |
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. | |
Honorable Charles K. McCotter Jr., (Ret.), as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: March 13, 2017 | |
Commencement: March 14, 2017 | |
Default Date: March 29, 2017 | |
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
Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment] |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant The Respondent’s domain name <lufthansa.link> is identical the Complainant’s famous trademark LUFTHANSA. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The domain name resolves to a site stating "Welcome to lufthansa.link". The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The Respondent registered the domain name containing the Complainant’s famous mark to suggest to a connection between the Complainant’s products and Respondent’s domain which simply does not exist. 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:
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:
|
Honorable Charles K. McCotter Jr., (Ret.) Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page