Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1802001773214
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.
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 and has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Omar Haydar, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: February 23, 2018
Commencement: February 26, 2018
Default Date: March 15, 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.
The complaint and findings relate to one domain <lufthansa-board.club>. There is one Complainant and one (or more) Respondent, and no domain names were dismissed from this complaint.
The Respondent (or such other individual or entity in association with the Respondent) has registered the domain name <lufthansa-board.club>.
Complainant, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, is the owner of trademark Lufthansa, which it has registered in various jurisdictions since at least 1993. The Complainant has operated as the Lufthansa brand since at least 1954, although the brand dates back to 1926.
Complainant has claimed that the domain name in question is identical to their protected word or mark.
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:
1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use.
2. Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
3. The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Examiner finds that Complainant has proven that the domain name is identical through evidence of the trademark registration. The Complainant’s trademark is a well established mark, in use for decades with international use and recognition as a commercial air carrier.
The Examiner further finds that Complainant has proven that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. The Complainant has neither licensed the trademark to the Respondent for use, nor has the Respondent made any claim to a legitimate right or interest to the name, whether by responding to this Complaint or vis-a-vis the content of their website.
The Examiner finds that the evidence does prove the domain names were registered and are clearly being used in bad faith. The content of the website utilizes a logo of the Complainant without any authorization, and offers a promotion for products of the Complainant without any legitimate link to Complainant. This usage gives an automatic inference of affiliation to the entity holding the trademark, and could cause confusion amongst internet users into an assumption of an affiliation or relationship (See Treeforms.com FA0010000095856). There is no evidence to the contrary of any lawful, non-infringing use of Complainant’s trademarks.
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-board.club>.
Omar Haydar, Examiner
Dated: March 15, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page