Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. at:software ag et al.
Claim Number: FA1603001665072
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte of Wiesbaden, Germany.
Respondent: at:software ag of Pfäffikon SZ, International, CH.
REGISTRY and REGISTRAR
Registry: Fox Station, LLC
Registrar: 1API GmbH
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Alan L. Limbury, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: March 11, 2016
Commencement: March 11, 2016
Default Date: March 29, 2016
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").
The Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The Complainant is a famous airline, one of the founders in 1997 of “Star Alliance”, the world’s first and largest airline alliance for customers worldwide, with more than 16,500 daily flights to 912 destinations in 159 countries.
The Complainant says the Respondent’s domain name <staralliance.flights> is “identical or confusingly similar to the trademark LUFTHANSA” [sic] and refers to Claim Number FA1406001562639 dated 15.06.2014. That case determined that the same domain name <staralliance.flights> is confusingly similar to the trademark STAR ALLIANCE, shown in that case, as here, to be registered by the Complainant in a number of countries, such as International Trademark registration No 674914 STAR ALLIANCE, registered on May 2, 1997 for goods and services in Intl Classes 9, 16, 39 and 42.
The Examiner accordingly treats the Complainant’s reference to the mark LUFTHANSA as a typographical error. It is clear that the Complainant is relying in this proceeding on its STAR ALLIANCE mark.
The Complainant asserts that it has given the Respondent no permission to incorporate its STAR ALLIANCE trademark into a domain name.
The domain name resolves to the website of the Respondent, a Swiss software company.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires the 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 is identical or confusingly similar to a
word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or
regional registration 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.
As to this element, the Examiner finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered STAR ALLIANCE mark, which is in current use.
The Complainant has established this element.
[URS 1.2.6.2] the Registrant has no rights to or legitimate interest in the domain name.
As to this element, in the absence of any Response, the Complainant’s assertions suffice to show prima facie that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
The Complainant has established this element.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
As to this element, the Examiner finds that the Respondent must have known of the Complainants STAR ALLIANCE trademark at the time of registration of the domain name and that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site.
Accordingly the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.
The Complainant has established this element.
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 name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<staralliance.flights>
Alan L. Limbury, Examiner
Dated: March 31, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page