Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1802001771986
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwaelte of Wiesbaden, Germany.
Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, International, PA.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: February 15, 2018
Commencement: February 19, 2018
Default Date: March 6, 2018
Upon review of the pertinent communications record, 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"), to give to Respondent notice of the commencement of this proceeding and an opportunity to defend against the allegations of the Complaint filed herein.
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of its registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Notwithstanding that Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make out a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following issues in order to obtain a determination that the challenged domain name should be suspended:
i. that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that it is in current use;
ii. that the registrant (Respondent) has no legitimate right to or interest in the domain name; and
iii. that the domain name was registered or is being used by the registrant (Respondent) in bad faith.
IDENTITY OR CONFUSING SIMILARITY
There is no dispute in the record that the challenged <lufthansa-promo.club> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LUFTHANSA service mark, or that Complainant holds a valid registration for the mark and that it is in current use. The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of a hyphen and the generic term “promo,” which can be taken to describe an aspect of Complainant’s business, plus the Top Level Domain “.club.” These alterations of the mark, made in creating the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the URS Procedure and its accompanying Rules. For these reasons, we find confusing similarity in the domain name.
REGISTRANT’S RIGHTS AND INTERESTS
Complainant first secured the protection of registration for its LUFTHANSA service mark in 1996, whereas Respondent obtained registration for its <lufthansa-promo.club> domain name only in 2018. As a consequence, Complainant’s rights in its mark are senior in time to, and therefore take precedence over, any claim Respondent might have made for rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Moreover, the Complaint asserts, without objection from Respondent, that:
i. Respondent employs the domain name to operate a fictitious lottery by which Internet users are made to believe that they might win free tickets to fly via Complainant’s air passenger service;
ii. the end object of Respondent’s fraudulent scheme is to entice unsuspecting Internet users to surrender sensitive personal information in order to qualify for participation in the putative lottery;
iii. Respondent has embedded Complainant’s mark in the web page resolving from the domain name so as to give an air of legitimacy to its fraudulent scheme.
On these uncontested facts, it must be concluded that Respondent has neither any right to nor any legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION OR USE
Under the URS Procedure and its accompanying Rules, essentially the same considerations as are described above, which make it clear that Respondent has neither rights to nor legitimate interests in the <lufthansa-promo.club> domain
name, are also pertinent to an analysis of the question whether the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. We may also take into account that it is evident from the record that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the LUFTHANSA mark when it registered the offending domain name. From all of this we are led to the determination that Respondent’s use of the domain name is disruptive of Complainant’s business and that Respondent both registered and now uses the domain name in bad faith.
We find from a review of the record that the Complaint was not brought as an abuse of this proceeding or of the URS Procedure and that it does not contain any material falsehoods.
Upon review of Complainant’s submissions, we determine that Complainant has adequately demonstrated all three required elements of the URS Procedure to a standard of clear and convincing evidence. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the domain name <lufthansa-promo.club> be SUSPENDED for the duration of its registration.
Terry F. Peppard, Examiner
Dated: March 06, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page