NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. ISE DANISMANLIK ULUS. EGT. LTD. STI
Claim Number: FA1407001568413


DOMAIN NAME

<lufthansa.international>


PARTIES


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

   Respondent: ISE DANISMANLIK ULUS. EGT. LTD. STI Gokyar Karsit of Sisli, Istanbul, II, TR
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Wild Way, LLC
   Registrars: Godaddy 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.
   David J. Steele Esq., as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: July 7, 2014
   Commencement: July 15, 2014
   Default Date: July 30, 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]

  

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:
  (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 owns numerous valid trademark registrations of national effect for its LUFTHANSA mark, including in Germany and the United States, to list a few. Complainant also owns a Community Trade Mark (CTM) which affords Complainant protection throughout the European Union, where Respondent is located. Complainant is currently using its LUFTHANSA mark in connection with the goods and services recited in the trademark registrations. These registrations evidence Complainant's rights for the purposes of the URS Policy. [URS 1.2.6.1(i)]. Additionally, the LUFTHANSA mark is unquestionably a famous trademark. The subject domain name, lufthansa.international, is identical to Complainant's famous trade mark "LUFTHANSA."


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not making any bona fide offering of goods or services, or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent has not submitted any credible evidence that Respondent plans to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Further, in view of Complainant’s famous trademark, any unprotected commercial use by Respondent of the domain name would violate Complainant’s rights.


[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 


The domain name currently resolves to a GoDaddy parking page. Notwithstanding that the GoDaddy parking page does not currently return any ads for goods or services other than those offered by GoDaddy, this use of the subject domain name supports a finding of bad faith. In addition, because Complainant’s famous trademark is so obviously connected with Complainant, the unprotected commercial use of the subject domain name by Respondent (who has no connection with Complainant or rights to use the domain name) supports a 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.

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.international

 

David J. Steele Esq.
Examiner
Dated: July 30, 2014

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page