national arbitration forum

URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Ilia Ivanov

Claim Number: FA1404001554367

 

DOMAIN NAME

<lufthansa.company>

 

PARTIES

Complainant:  Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.

Complainant Representative: 

Complainant Representative: Hajo Rauschhofer of Wiesbaden, Germany.

 

Respondent:  Ilia Ivanov of Lobnya, Moskovskaya obl., International, RU.

Respondent Representative:  «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registries:  COMPANY Registry

Registrars:  Regional Network Information Center, JSC; Regional Network Information Center, JSC dba RU-CENTER

 

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.

 

Jonathan Agmon, as Examiner.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: April 16, 2014

Commencement: April 16, 2014   

Default Date: May 1, 2014

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration 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 Complainant, Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany, is one of the world leading airlines, which operates worldwide and served 218 destinations in 2013.

 

The trademark LUFTHANSA is well-known throughout the world and enjoys a reputation for a leading airline company.  

 

The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the LUFTHANSA marks around the world.  For example:

 

The Complainant is the owner United States registration No. 1994296 – LUFTHANSA (designed), with the registration date of August 20, 1996; CTM registration No. 1212539 – LUFTHANSA (designed), with the registration date of February 26, 2001; Deautsches registration No. 990835 - LUFTHANSA (designed), with the registration date of September 25, 1976 and etc.

 

According to the Complainant, the domain lufthansa.comapny is confusingly similar to the registered trademark since it totally contains the Complainant’s trademark and adds “company” to it.

 

Complainant asserts the following regarding the Respondent;

1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS 1.2.6.1]: for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use.

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

3. The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as: By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant's web site or other online 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.

 

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.

 

 

Determined: Identical and/or Confusingly Similar - Finding for Complainant 

 

The Complainant's trademark - LUFTHANSA is a famous and well-known trademark worldwide (See Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Gandiyork, FA1403001549328).  

 

The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for LUFTHANSA, including U.S. Reg. No. 1994296 and CTM registration No. 1212539.

 

The domain name includes the Complainant's mark in its entirety, together with the gTLD ".company".

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that the <Lufthansa.company> domain name is identical to the WOLFRAM mark pursuant to URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.

 

Determined: Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name - Finding for Complainant 

 

There is no evidence that Respondent is known as LUFTHANSA. The Complainant has not given any permission to the Respondent to use the LUFTHANSA trademark.

The domain name was resolved to a parking page.

 

Complainant has met its burden. Respondent provided no response to the complaint.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2.

 

 

Determined: The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith - Finding for Complainant 

 

 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.

 

The Complainant has satisfied URS 1.2.6.3 (b) since the Respondent must have known of the Complainant's well-known mark when registering the domain name and when using the website under the domain name as parking website.

 

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

 

The Examiner finds that the Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

 

 

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.company>

 

Jonathan Agmon, Examiner

Dated:  May 04, 2014

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page