Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Rita Gil
Claim Number: FA1411001588222
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte of Wiesbaden, Germany.
Respondent: Rita Gil of Steinhausen, International, CH.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Steel Falls, LLC
Registrars: Key-Systems, LLC
The undersigned certifies that he 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.
Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 4, 2014
Commencement: November 4, 2014
Default Date: November 19, 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") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Procedural Findings:
No multiple complainants or respondents and no extraneous domain names require dismissal.
Findings of Fact:
The Complainant, Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany, is one of the world leading airlines, which operates worldwide.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the LUFTHANSA marks around the world. Among others, it holds a valid regional registration for the LUFTHANSA word mark (WIPO registration No. 722971, registration date: August 5, 1999).
The trademark LUFTHANSA is well-known throughout the world and enjoys a reputation for a leading airline company.
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.
IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
The disputed domain name, <lufthansa.agency> is identical to the Complainant's LUFTHANSA trademark since it incorporates the word mark in its entirety. In addition, it is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus the “.agency” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825).
The Examiner finds that the Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1. of URS Procedure – the Complainant proved that it holds a valid regional trademark (WIPO registration No. 722971). Further, the Complainant confirmed that the registered trademark is in current use by presenting screenshots from the Complainant’s website (www.lufthansa.com).
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
According to the Complainant’s, the Respondent has no intellectual property rights in name “Lufthansa” nor it offers similar services to the Complainant’s. The Complainant has neither licensed nor authorized Respondent to use LUFTHANSA trademark or register a domain name containing this trademark. The Complainant believes that the Respondent did not make a legitimate use of the disputed domain name as it was passively hold since registered. This assertion is evidenced by the screenshot of <lufthansa.agency>.
In the absence of any counter arguments and evidences in support of the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interest, the Examiner finds that the second element under URS Procedure 1.2.6.2 has been satisfied.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
According to WhoIs database, the disputed domain names was registered on October 16, 2014 whereas the LUFTHANSA trademark is commonly known all around the world for years (See Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Gandiyork, FA1403001549328). Therefore, the Respondent had known or should have known about the LUFTHANSA trademark. In the light of this, registering a domain name corresponding to a famous and reputable trademark, and subsequent passive holding of such a domain, thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain, is viewed by the Examiner as bad faith.
Moreover, by choosing a word “agency” as the gTLD has already demonstrated bad faith. As “agency” means official representation, the disputed domain name creates a high likelihood of confusion. The Internet users may reasonably expect that the disputed domain name is closely connected with the Complainant.
The Respondent has not submitted any evidences confirming circumstances listed in URS Procedure 5.7. In the absence of any defense which might have affected the decision on this issue, it is found that the third element of the policy under URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 has been satisfied.
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.
Piotr Nowaczyk, Examiner
Dated: November 19, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page