URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1803001774895


DOMAIN NAME

<lufthansa-de.club>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany
  
Complainant Representative: Rauchhofer Rechtsanwaelte of Wiesbaden, Germany

   Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. WhoisGuard Protected of Panama, II, PA
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
   Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.

EXAMINER


   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.
   Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: March 7, 2018
   Commencement: March 8, 2018
   Default Date: March 23, 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").

RELIEF SOUGHT


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW


   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION



   Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]

  

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.


[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark: The Examiner finds that the Complainant holds a valid national or regional trademark registration and that is in current use. The Examiner finds that the Respondent’s domain name <lufthansa­de.club> is substantially identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark LUFTHANSA.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Respondent is not an authorized licensee of the Complainant, nor is he authorized to use the Complainant's marks. The Examiner finds that the 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.


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site 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 Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Examiner recognizes that bad faith exists where the Respondent clearly registered the domain name, appropriating the Complainant’s famous trademark, in order to provide a fake ”lottery” to win Lufthansa tickets. The Examiner agrees 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 Examiner notes the Complainant's allegations that users contact the Complainant in request for the tickets leading to an enormous damage in reputation for the Complainant because the requests cannot be fulfilled. As far as it can be seen, the relevance of the “fake” game has gathered more than 10.000 Followers. The damages caused will reflect that all these users will be disappointed when they have to realize that they will not receive any free/won tickets and their personal data and passwords to the facebook accounts are lost. The Examiner agrees that the fake lottery indicates that the Respondent has registered the domain name attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other on­line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark through the offer of Lufthansa tickets. The Examiner also agrees with the Complainant's arguments that Respondent has embedded the sign of the Mark LUFTHANSA and displays the company name Lufthansa on the website in order to suggest a connection between the domain to services of Complainant. Internet users should believe that Respondent’s website is sponsored by Complainant or its website. This is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy (FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000; FA 353151 Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 13, 2004).The suffix “club” refers to community of the Complainant and the word de is the abbreviation of Deutschland/Germany. The Examiner finds that in cases where the TLD corresponds to the complainant’s area of trade, it constitutes an abusive intent to confuse Internet users positively relevant to assessment of bad faith.


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

DETERMINATION


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 name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. lufthansa-de.club

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm
Examiner
Dated: March 23, 2018

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page