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.

The Examiner finds that the Complainant holds a valid national or regional trademark registration and that is in current use. The Examiner finds that the Respondent’s domain names Staralliance.life; Staralliance.website; Staralliance.site and Staralliance.gold are substantially identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark Staralliance respectively.

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

The Respondent is not an authorized licensee of the Complainant, nor is he authorized to use the Complainant's mark. The Examiner finds that the use of the domain names cannot be considered to constitute a legitimate noncommercial use of the domain names or a use connected with a bona fide offering of goods or services either.

[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.

The Examiner recognizes that bad faith exists where the Respondent, by using the domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online 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 or of a product or service on its website or location. The Examiner agrees that someone who uses an identical trademark that evidently belongs to a third party to “build” a domain name where the only difference is the suffixes .life; .website; .site; and .gold, knows the trademark since it’s impossible to coin an identical word by coincidence. The Examiner also agrees that this is misleading and supports finding of bad faith registration (WIPO No. D2005-0072). Additionally, Panels have also noted that passive holding or non-use of a domain name is evidence of a lack of legitimate rights in the domain name (NAF FA- 097328; NAF FA96248). The Examiner agrees that users expect to receive information about StarAlliance flights or StarAlliance in general. The Examiner also agrees that it is impossible to imagine how the respondent should use that combination of words, if not pretending to act as an StarAlliance-official. The Complainant's mark StarAlliance is non-generic name. The consensus view of panels is that the domain name needs to be genuinely used and not to trade off third-party rights. The Examiner concludes that the Respondent clearly registered the Domain to catch the attention of travelers who look for StarAlliance related information.

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:

staralliance.gold
staralliance.life
staralliance.site
staralliance.website

	Complainant Submitted: April 21, 2017
	Commencement: April 21, 2017
	Default Date: May 8, 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").

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

	Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. WhoisGuard Protected of Panama, II, PA

	Registries: June Edge, LLC,Trixy Oaks, LLC,DotSite Inc.,DotWebsite Inc.
	Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.,Namecheap

	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.
	Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Respondents: The registered Registrants for all domains is the whois privacy service & Quot;WhoisGuard" so the relationship is based on identity. Furthermore all domains share the identical content which indicate the true Registrant to be Lord Oxford. Considering all these elements The Examiner finds that the domain Respondents are evidently related.