URS FINAL DETERMINATION
Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Liu Mei Sheng et al.
Claim Number: FA1706001737855
DOMAIN NAME
<lufthansa.site>
PARTIES
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany | |
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte of Wiesbaden, Germany
|
Respondent: worker Mei Sheng Liu of shnaghai, China | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotSite Inc. | |
Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) |
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. | |
David L. Kreider Esq,, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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"). |
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: 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 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: 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 1.2.6.2] 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 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
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. 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:
|
David L. Kreider Esq,
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page