Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Liu Mei Sheng et al.
Claim Number: FA1706001737855




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

   Respondent: worker Mei Sheng Liu of shnaghai, China


   Registries: DotSite Inc.
   Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)


   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.
   David L. Kreider Esq,, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: June 29, 2017
   Commencement: June 29, 2017
   Response Date: July 2, 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 requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.


   Clear and convincing evidence.


   Findings of Fact: Complainant alleges that "it would be impossible" for someone to say that he or she does not know the LUFTHANSA registered trademark. This examiner agrees, notwithstanding Respondent's wholly unsubstantiated assertion that "the Complainant's name is not highly known in China" and consists of "a combination of English letters".


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] 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 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered LUFTHANSA trademark in its entirety and is therefore identical to Complainant's trademark.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Respondent does not refute Complainant's allegation that the Respondent has no permission; no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and that the Respondent has no identical trademark or name and offers no related services.

[URS] 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 

The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering the domain for sale. This use of the domain name cannot be considered to constitute a legitimate noncommercial use of the domain name, nor is this a use connected with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and 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.


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. 


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.site


David L. Kreider Esq,
Dated: July 3, 2017



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page