Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1801001765466
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwaelte of Wiesbaden, Germany.
Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, International, PA.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotHost Inc.
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
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.
James Bridgeman, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: January 4, 2018
Commencement: January 4, 2018
Default Date: January 19, 2018
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.
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;
This Examiner finds that the Complainant has produced clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the disputed comain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In making this finding the Examiner accepts the following submissions of the Complainant::
The Respondent’s domain name lufthansa.host is identical to the trademark LUFTHASA. LUFTHANSA is a famous and well-known trademark operating worldwide, being impossible to say that one does not know it (see lufthansa.shop,NAF 1700646; lufthansa.store, NAF1679906 LUFTHANSA.koeln, NAF16155255; LUFTHANSA.blog, FA1611001704383, LUFTHANSA.yokohama, NAF1580504; LUFTHANSAv.Guliev FA1559476; LUFTHANSAv.Niklaes FA1562639; LUFTHANSAv.MBI FA1566236; LUFTHANSAv.Gandiyork, FA1549328). The Respondent knew of the trademark Lufthansa at the time of Registration. It is improbable that the identical word “lufthansa” would be coined by coincidence. The Respondent has no permission, no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.The Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith. It is indicated that bad faith exists where the Respondent, by using the 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 (WIPO No. D2006-0700). The Respondent clearly registered the domain name, appropriating the Complainant’s famous trademark, in order to suggest to the Internet user a connection between the Complainant’s products and Respondent’s domain which simply does not exist. This is misleading and supports finding of bad faith registration (WIPO No. D2005-0072). The Respondent uses the domain for a fake lottery. Visitors should believe to win free Lufthansa tickets. Therefor the Respondent uses the Logo and trademark of the Respondent. But there are no tickets to win and no authorization or connection to the Complainant. This use of the domain name cannot be considered to constitute a legitimate noncommercial use of the domain name or a use connected with a bona fide offering of goods or services either (WIPO No. D2008-1065 or D2005-1090). The suffix “host” refers to the general hosting of an internet domain. The Respondent clearly registered the domain name, appropriating the Complainant’s famous trademark, for his own purposes. This is misleading and supports finding of bad faith registration (WIPO No. D2005-0072). Especially when the Respondent uses WhoisPrivacyProtection Services (WIPO No. D2006-0696) which are subject to manipulation by a registrant seeking to evade enforcement of legitimate third-party rights or to obstruct proceedings commenced under the Policy (WIPO No. D2007-0062). Due to the URS-rules esp. 1.2.6.3.a. this circumstance demonstrates bad faith. It is impossible to imagine how the respondent should use that combination of words, if not pretending to act as an LUFTHANSA-official. LUFTHANSA is a non-generic name. The consensus view of panels is that the domain name needs to be genuinely used and not to trade off third-party rights. The Respondent clearly registered the Domain to catch and fish for personal data information of users.
The Examiner makes no finding of abuse or material falsehood
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:
<lufthansa.host>.
James Bridgeman, Examiner
Dated: January 19, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page