NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS FINAL DETERMINATION


Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. jingjing tang et al.
Claim Number: FA1405001558805


DOMAIN NAME

<lufthansa.club>


PARTIES


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

   Respondent: Jingjing Tang of Beijing, China
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: CLUB Registry
   Registrars: GoDaddy.com, Inc.

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.
   Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: May 12, 2014
   Commencement: May 14, 2014
   Response Date: May 27, 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



   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 


The registered domain name is identical to Complainant's well-known trade mark "LUFTHANSA".


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Registrant has no trade mark rights in respect of the domain name. The domain name has not been used by Registrant and has simply been resolved to a German language parking page.


[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 


Respondent claims to be a poet and artist who registered the domain name for use by a poetry and literary society. Respondent claims the domain name was chosen as it is similar to the pinyin (romanized Chinese) text for the Chinese characters "禄" and "福" ("LU" and "FU"). Respondent claims to have been surprised to have been accused of bad faith registration and use, yet Respondent admits in correspondence with the National Arbitration Forum that "everyone knows that Lufthansa is the world's fourth largest airline". The Examiner finds Respondent's contentions unconvincing. In all the circumstances, as the domain name is identical to Complainant's trade mark, given the acknowledged worldwide repute of Complainant's trade mark, and given Respondent's passive use of the domain name, the Examiner finds the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Following filing of the Complainant, Respondent offered to sell the domain name to Complainant for US$980. The Examiner finds this constitutes further grounds in support of the finding of bad faith.


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:


  1. 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:

  1. lufthansa.club

 


Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes
Examiner
Dated: May 27, 2014

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page