URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. W.KING

Claim Number: FA1712001761485

 

DOMAIN NAMES

<lufthansa.fun><lufthansa.ink><lufthansa.xn--6qq986b3xl>

 

PARTIES

Complainant:  Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.

Complainant Representative:  

Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwaelte of Wiesbaden, Germany.

 

Respondent:  W.KING of shang hai shi, shang hai, International, CN.

Respondent Representative: N/A

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registries:  DotSpace Inc.; Top Level Design, LLC; Tycoon Treasure Limited

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

 

EXAMINER

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.

 

David L. Kreider, as Examiner.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: December 6, 2017

Commencement: December 7, 2017   

Default Date: December 22, 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

The Examiner speaks and reads Chinese as a second language, and notes that the gTLD for the Disputed Domain Name, “lufthansa.xn--6qq986b3xl”, expressed in Chinese characters, is “我爱你”, which is Chinese for “I love you”.

 

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.

 

LUFTHANSA is a famous and well-known trademark operating worldwide, as numerous panels and examiners have found.  (See lufthansa.onl, NAF 1700646; lufthansa.store, NAF1406001566251 LUFTHANSA.koeln, NAF16155255;

LUFTHANSA.blog, FA1611001704383, LUFTHANSA.yokohama, NAF1580504; LUFTHANSAv.Guliev FA1559476; LUFTHANSAv.Niklaes FA1562639; LUFTHANSAv.MBI FA1566236; LUFTHANSAv.Gandiyork, FA1549328).

 

The Disputed Domain Names are identical to Complainant’s mark.  Moreover, the addition of the gTLDs “fun”, “ink” and “我爱你, respectively, are of no relevance to the inquiry and require no different result.

 

It is inconceivable to this Examiner that Respondent could have been unaware of Complainant’s trademark when he registered the Disputed Domain Name. 

 

Respondent has no permission, and no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names. 

 

The incorporation of a well-known trademark into a domain name by a registrant having no plausible explanation for doing so is, in and of itself, an indication of bad faith (WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; WIPO Case No. D2001-0087; WIPO

Case No. D2000-1568).

 

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.

 

<lufthansa.fun><lufthansa.ink><lufthansa.xn--6qq986b3xl>

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Examiner

Dated:  December 22, 2017

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page