Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. 王永坤
Claim Number: FA1712001761483
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwaelte of Wiesbaden, Germany.
Respondent: 王永坤 of 上海市, International, cn.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: TLD REGISTRY LIMITED
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.
Jonathan Agmon, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: December 6, 2017
Commencement: December 6, 2017
Default Date: December 21, 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.
The Complainant, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, is a German company part of the Lufthansa Group, which is a global aviation group with a total of more than 550 subsidiaries and equity investments. In 2016, the Lufthansa Group generated revenue of EUR 31.7 billion. At year-end 2016, the Lufthansa Group had a total of 124,306 employees worldwide. The Complainant is the parent company and the largest single operating company in the Lufthansa Group.
Complainant is the owner of the mark – LUFTHANSA, European Reg. No. 001212539 with the registration date of February 26, 2001.
The Complainant grounds on which it is entitled to relief are:
1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.1]: for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use;
2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.2]; 3. [if URS] The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as: [if .usRS] The domain name(s) was/were registered or are being used in bad faith [.usRS 1.2.6.3] such as:
(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;
(b) By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other online 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.
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.
Determined: Identical and/or Confusingly Similar - Finding for Complainant
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.
Complainant is the owner of the mark – LUFTHANSA, European Reg. No. 001212539 with the registration date of February 26, 2001.
The domain name includes the Complainant's mark in its entirety, together with the gTLD ". xn--3ds443” which is the IDN for 在线 in the Chinese language. The characters 在线 translate to the word “online” in the English language, and cannot distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the <lufthansa.xn--3ds443g> domain name is confusingly similar to the LUFTHANSA mark pursuant to URS 1.2.6.1.
Determined: Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name - Finding for Complainant
The Complainant provided evidence showing that it is the owner of the LUFTHANSA trademark and that there is no evidence that Respondent is known as LUFTHANSA or owns an identical trademark or offers any kind of services under the disputed domain name. Respondent provided no response to the complaint. Complainant has met its burden pursuant to URS 1.2.6.2.
Determined: The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith - Finding for Complainant
The Complainant has satisfied URS 1.2.6.3 (b) since the Respondent must have known of the Complainant's well-known LUFTHANSA mark when registering the domain name. in addition, the Registrants email is used with some 5,737 domains suggesting the Respondent is engaged in domain grabbing.
Since Complainant's trademark was registered long before the disputed domain name was registered, and there is no plausible good faith use the Respondent may make of the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to attract for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3 (b).
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.
Jonathan Agmon, Examiner
Dated: December 24, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page