URS FINAL DETERMINATION

Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. 王永坤 et al.
Claim Number: FA1712001761482

DOMAIN NAME

<lufthansa.red>

PARTIES

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

	Respondent: 王永坤王永坤 of 上海, --, China

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Afilias plc
	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.
	Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: December 6, 2017
	Commencement: December 6, 2017
	Response Date: December 20, 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]

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

Complainant relies on its CTM registration No. 001212539 for the word mark Lufthansa, registered since February 26, 2001 (the "Trade Mark"). Excluding the gTLD ".red", the domain name is identical to the Trade Mark.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Respondent, a Chinese national, submits that Respondent has a daughter with the English name "Luf Thansa"; that Respondent initially wanted to register a domain name <Luf Thansa.red>, but Respondent was told it could only be registered as <lufthansa.red> (without a space between "Luf" and "Thansa") under the rules; and that Respondent registered the domain name to be used as Respondent's daughter's personal blog. The uncontested evidence is that the domain name has not been used. The Examiner has not previously heard of the existence of the English language name "Luf Thansa". The Examiner finds Respondent's bare assertions, unsupported by evidence, entertaining but entirely unconvincing.

[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

The Trade Mark is a well-known mark. The domain name is identical to the Trade Mark. In all the circumstances, the Examiner concludes it is inconceivable Respondent did not have Complainant and its Trade Mark in mind when Respondent registered the domain name.

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.

Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

There are no grounds whatsoever to support a finding that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

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:

lufthansa.red

Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes
Examiner
Dated: December 20, 2017

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page