URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. REDACTED PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA1808001800812
DOMAIN NAME
<staralliance.group>
<staralliance.tours>
<staralliance.world>
PARTIES
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany | |
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte of Wiesbaden, Germany
|
Respondent: Mohamed elkassab of Cairo, Cairo, EG | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC | |
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC |
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. | |
Hector Ariel Manoff, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: August 10, 2018 | |
Commencement: August 10, 2018 | |
Default Date: August 27, 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: The Complainant owns the intensively used wordmark STARALLIANCE. “StarAlliance” is the world’s first and largest airline alliance worldwide. STARALLIANCE network offers more than 18,400 daily flights to 1,300 airports in 191 countries. Founded in 1997, the Complainant is one of the five founding airlines. |
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.
[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 names <staralliance.group>, <staralliance.tours> and <staralliance.world> are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademarks STARALLIANCE. It combines the mentioned Trademark with the addition of generic or descriptive words, such as “group”, “tours” and “world”, indicating the purpose of selling STARALLIANCE related services. Examiner finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark registrations and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.1 by demonstrating that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national registration which is in current use. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered trademark STARALLIANCE. No evidence was submitted by Respondent to prove that he is commonly known as STARALLIANCE. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in STARALLIANCE and the disputed domain names, or evidence about a fair use either. The Examiner finds that the requirements set forth by URS 1.2.6.2 have been also met.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Since Complainant’s trademark is prior to the disputed domain names’ registration, Examiner concludes that the registration of the disputed domain name was made on bad faith. Regarding the use of the domain name, it is designed to attract users to its website where it impersonates Complainant. The used suffixes refer to information which users expect about StarAlliance. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3. 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:
|
Hector Ariel Manoff Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page