Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Noorie Arora
Claim Number: FA1802001771985
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG, of Frankfurt, Germany.
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwaelte, of Wiesbaden, Germany.
Respondent: Noorie Arora of Delhi, International, IN.
Respondent Representative: Unrepresented
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: NeuStar
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Jeffrey M. Samuels, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: February 15, 2018
Commencement: February 15, 2018
Default Date: March 2, 2018
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under usRS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the .usTLD Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant owns a number of national and regional registrations for the trademark LUFTHANSA. The disputed domain name, Lufthansa-reviews.us, resolves to a website that provides a fake lottery to win tickets on Complainant’s airline. The site has been visited by more than 80,000 Internet users.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, usRS 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.
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar/Rights/Current Use
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LUFTHANSA mark. The domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety and the addition of the descriptive term “reviews” does not dispel the confusing similarity between the mark and domain name. The Examiner further notes that the evidence supports a determination that Complainant owns both national and regional registrations for the LUFTHANSA mark and that such mark is in current use.
2. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent has no permission to use the domain name and Respondent has offered evidence or argument to the contrary.
3. Bad Faith Registration or Use
The Examiner concludes that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. As noted above, Respondent registered the disputed domain name, appropriating the LUFTHANSA mark, in order to provide a fake lottery to win tickets on Lufthansa. Thus, the Examiner finds that Respondent, by using the domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such site or of a product or service on such site. The use of the term “reviews” in the disputed domain name exacerbates the likelihood of confusion insofar as users are likely to believe that such term refers to the services of Complainant.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the usRS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence. The Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Lufthansa-reviews.us
Jeffrey M. Samuels, Examiner
Dated: March 03, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page