Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. 王永坤 @ 王永坤 et al.
Claim Number: FA1712001761484
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwaelte of Wiesbaden, Germany.
Respondent: 王永坤 of 上海, Unknown, China.
王永坤 @ 王永坤 of 上海市, 上海, International, cn.
黄克强 @ 黄克强 of 宝鸡市, 陕西, International, cn.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Computer Network Information Center of Chinese Academy of Sciences (China Internet Network Information Center)
Registrars: HiChina Zhicheng Technology Limited
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.
David L. Kreider, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: December 6, 2017
Commencement: December 8, 2017
Response Date: December 22, 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 Examiner speaks and reads Chinese as a second language, and has reviewed and considered Respondent’s Response, which was submitted timely in the Chinese language.
The gTLD for the Disputed Domain Name, “.xn--55qx5d”, expressed in Chinese characters, is “公司”, which is the Chinese word meaning “company”.
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.
LUFTHANSA is a famous and well-known trademark operating worldwide, as numerous panels and examiners have found. (See lufthansa.onl, NAF 1700646; lufthansa.store, NAF1406001566251 LUFTHANSA.koeln, NAF16155255;
LUFTHANSA.blog, FA1611001704383, LUFTHANSA.yokohama, NAF1580504; LUFTHANSAv.Guliev FA1559476; LUFTHANSAv.Niklaes FA1562639; LUFTHANSAv.MBI FA1566236; LUFTHANSAv.Gandiyork, FA1549328).
The Disputed Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s mark. Moreover, the use of the Chinese-language gTLD “公司”, or “company” serves to increase the likelihood of confusion on the part of public users of the Internet.
It is inconceivable to this Examiner that Respondent could have been unaware of Complainant’s trademark when he registered the Disputed Domain Name.
Respondent has no permission, no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names. Respondent alleges that his daughter was given “the English name” “Luft Thansa”, and that the Disputed Domain Name was chosen accordingly. The Examiner finds Respondent’s purported defense to be incredible and wholly unworthy of belief, particularly when this allegation is weighed against Complainant’s evidence that Respondent’s email is used in connection with some 5,737 other domains.
The Respondent concedes that the Disputed Domain Name is not linked to any operating website and is inactive. Respondent is not engaged in any bona fide commercial activity via the Disputed Domain Name.
The incorporation of a well-known trademark into a domain name by a registrant having no plausible explanation for doing so is, in and of itself, an indication of bad faith (WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; WIPO Case No. D2001-0087; WIPO
Case No. D2000-1568).
The Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Examiner has reviewed the record, and finds Respondent’s allegations to be wholly specious and without merit.
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.
<lufthansa.xn--55qx5d>
David L. Kreider, Examiner
Dated: December 22, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page