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.

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

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Without permission to the Respondent has no right to use the trademark. Respondent has no identical trademark nor offers related services. It is difficult to conceive of any use of the disputed domain name that would not be in bad faith, and Respondent is actually using the disputed domain name in bad faith, see below.

[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.

The disputed domain incorporates the LUFTHANSA mark and adds the suffix ”bayern”. As a meaning “bayern” refers to the German state “Bavaria”, where is major hub airport Munich of Complainant Lufthansa is located. Thus the disputed domain name suggests that it is a representation/presence and official website of LUFTHANSA. Furthermore Bavaria <Bayern> is a state with many airports frequently visited by Lufthansa as regular destinations. Respondent has no affiliation with Lufthansa and cannot be its official representative. It is impossible to imagine how Respondent should use that combination of words, if not pretending to act as an LUFTHANSA-official. LUFTHANSA is a non-generic name. LUFTHANSA has frequently been the subject of fraud by people pretending acting as LUFTHANSA officials sending fake offers, tickets, bills, contracts of labour etc. It is obvious that the domain lufthansa.bayern is very dangerous and suitable for violation. Bad faith exists where Respondent, by using the disputed domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website 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 its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. In the instant case, Respondent clearly registered the disputed domain name, appropriating the Complainant’s famous trademark, for his own purposes. This is misleading and supports finding of bad faith registration and use. Indeed the disputed domain name points to a web page that contains a link to a web page offering commercial domain name, web hosting, and E-Mail services that have no relation to Complainant. This constitutes bad faith use.

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

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:

lufthansa.bayern

	Complainant Submitted: October 19, 2015
	Commencement: October 20, 2015
	Default Date: November 5, 2015
	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").

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

	Registries: Bayern Connect GmbH
	Registrars: PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot

	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.
	Richard W. Hill, as Examiner

	Respondent: Markus Meissner of Wiesbaden, DE, DE