URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. REDACTED PRIVACY et al.
Claim Number: FA1807001799252
DOMAIN NAME
<staralliance.golf>
PARTIES
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany | |
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte of Wiesbaden, Germany
|
Respondent: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY of REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, II, AU | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC | |
Registrars: Uniregistrar Corp |
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. | |
Darryl C. Wilson, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: July 31, 2018 | |
Commencement: August 1, 2018 | |
Default Date: August 16, 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
Procedural Findings: | ||
Multiple Complainants: N.A. | ||
Multiple Respondents: N.A. |
Findings of Fact: The Complainant LUFTHANSA is owner of the intensively used wordmark STARALLIANCE. The Respondent’s domain, staralliance.golf is identical to Complainant's trademark STARALLIANCE. “StarAlliance”, headquartered in Frankfurt/Germany, is the world’s first and largest airline alliance worldwide. STARALLIANCE network offers more than 18,400 daily flights to 1,300 airports in 191 countries. Founded in 1997, Complainant is one of the five founding airlines. StarAlliance has frequently been the subject of fraud by people pretending to be LUFTHANSA/StarAlliance officials sending fake offers, tickets, bills, advertising and goods etc. |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent uses Complainant's identical trademark in it's domain name with the only difference being the addition of the gTld .golf. Prior decisions have found against Respondents similarly misusing Complainant's mark to suggest affiliation or sponsorship by Complainant. See; STARALLIANCE.app,NAF1805001788624; STARALLIANCE.gold -.life -.site -.website, NAF1704001728200; STARALLIANCE.link, NAF1704001728149; STARALLIANCE.tokyo, FA1408001574053. See URS 1.2.6.1 (i), (ii). Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence regarding this element. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant has not given Respondent any permission to use the disputed domain name and Respondent has not indicated any manner in which it has obtained any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The Respondent has no identical trademark nor offers any services related to the domain name or Complainant's mark. The Respondent’s email is associated with 14,562 other domains indicating professional domain grabbing. Respondent did not assert any defenses nor does the panel find any are applicable. Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence regarding this element.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The Respondent registered the domain name, appropriating the Complainant’s trademark, in order to suggest to the Internet user a connection between the Respondent's identified products or services and Complainant, in violation of URS 1.2.6.3 (d). Complainant, StarAlliance offers a great variety of goods and services. Respondent's use is misleading and supports finding of bad faith registration. Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence regarding this element. 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:
Respondent did not contest the proceedings or any of the assertions or evidence Complainant set forth.
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:
|
Darryl C. Wilson Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page