URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

Deutsche Lufthansa AG et al. v. WhoisGuard, Inc.

Claim Number: FA1803001775742

 

DOMAIN NAME

<austrianair.website>

 

PARTIES

Complainant: †Austrian Airlines AG of Wien, Austria.

Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwaelte of Wiesbaden, Germany.

 

Respondent: †WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, International, PA.

Respondent Representative: †none

 

REGISTRY and REGISTRAR

Registry: †DotWebsite Inc.

Registrar: †NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Debrett Gordon Lyons as Examiner.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: March 15, 2018

Commencement: March 15, 2018†††

Default Date: March 30, 2018

 

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:

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires the 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.

 

[URS 1.2.6.1.] The registered domain name is 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.

 

The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is the registered owner of EUTM Regn. No. 10231405 for the mark, AUSTRIAN AIRLINES, registered from August 31, 2011, as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.

 

The disputed domain name makes trivial alterations to the Complainantís trademark, redacting the word ďairlinesĒ to ďairĒ and adding the gTLD.† Neither alternation an element of distinctiveness to the trademark and the Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is essentially identical (and certainly confusingly similar) to the Complainantís trademark.

 

The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that URS Procedure 1.2.6.1 is satisfied.

 

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

 

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name, that it has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name, that he has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and that there has been no bona fide use of the domain name. †The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage which promotes a fake lottery to win free air travel with the Complainant.

 

The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.† Accordingly, URS Procedure 1.2.6.2 is satisfied.

 

[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that Respondent targeted Complainantís trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.†

Absent a response there is no plausible reason to find registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in good faith.† There has been no use of the domain name for a bona fide purpose.† The fake lottery is clearly bad faith use.

 

The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.† Accordingly, URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 is satisfied.

 

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

No abuse or material falsehood.

 

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the Complainantís 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 be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.

 

<austrianair.website>

 

 

Debrett Lyons, Examiner

Dated:† March 30, 2018

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page