Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. 王永坤 et al.
Claim Number: FA1711001759836
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwaelte of Wiesbaden, International, Germany.
Respondent: 王永坤 of 上海, Unknown, China.
王永坤 of 上海市, International, CN.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Afilias plc
Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)
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.
Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 24, 2017
Commencement: November 27, 2017
Response Date: December 11, 2017
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 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 FACTS:
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 registration for the LUFTHANSA word mark (WIPO registration No. 722971, registration date: August 5, 1999).
The LUFTHANSA mark is well-known throughout the world and enjoys a reputation for a leading airline company.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the LUFTHANSA mark, and was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent who has no rights or legitimate interests in it. In particular, the Complainant claims that the Respondent’s email is to 344 domain names which indicates that he engaged in the pattern of registering domain names.
The Respondent asserts that he has a daughter named Luf Thansa for whom he registered the disputed domain name. Further, the Respondent emphasizes that the Complainant could have registered the disputed domain name itself, but it did not. He also contends that he did not use the disputed domain name for illegal purpose and does not intend to do so.
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.
IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
The disputed domain name, <lufthansa.kim> 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 “.kim” 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”. The Complainant has neither licensed nor authorized the Respondent to use LUFTHANSA mark or register a domain name containing this mark. 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.kim>.
Given the above, 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 November 11, 2017 whereas the LUFTHANSA mark 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 mark. 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.
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 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Piotr Nowaczyk, Examiner
Dated: December 13, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page