URS FINAL DETERMINATION

Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. get it live GmbH et al.
Claim Number: FA1712001762845

DOMAIN NAME

<miles-and-more.cards>

PARTIES

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

	Respondent: get it live GmbH Jan Husseini of Nidderau, Germany

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Foggy Hollow, LLC
	Registrars: Mesh Digital Limited

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.
	Richard W. Hill, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: December 14, 2017
	Commencement: December 14, 2017
	Response 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

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 holds valid rights for the trademark MILES AND MORE. The disputed domain name is identical to the mark.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The disputed domain name initially resolved to a web site that offered software products and services unrelated to Respondent's products and services. This does not establish legitimate rights or interests to the disputed domain name. Further, the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith, see below.

[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

Complainant's mark is very well know, so it is difficult to envisage any use that would not be in bad faith. As already noted, the disputed domain name initially resolved to an unrelated web site. This is sufficient to find bad faith registration and use. Further, the disputed domain name subsequently resolved to the web site of a bank that partners with Complainant to offer credit cards. Respondent is not associated with that bank. The subsequent redirect appears to be an attempt to mislead the Examiner into thinking that the disputed domain name is being used for a legitimate purpose. Such an attempt to mislead the Examiner is additional ground to find bad faith registration and use.

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.

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:

miles-and-more.cards

Richard W. Hill
Examiner
Dated: December 22, 2017

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page