Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Quantum Fields Technologies, SL
Claim Number: FA1504001615335
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte of Wiesbaden, Germany.
Respondent: Quantum Fields Technologies, SL of Andorra la Vella, International, AD.
Respondent Representative: None
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Dot London Domains Limited
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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.
James Bridgeman, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 20, 2015
Commencement: May 4, 2015
Default Date: May 19, 2015
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.
Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration for the LUFTHANSA trademark, being German trademark registration number 001212539 registered on February 26, 2001 for goods and services in classes 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42.
Complainant has furnished evidence of use by way of a print-out of its website at <www.lufthansa.com/de/en/Homepage.
URS Procedure ¶ 1.2.6, and ¶ 8.1 requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the three elements of the test therein to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
Applying the tests set by URS Procedure, this Examiner finds that in accordance with URS Procedure ¶ 8.1.2 that Complainant has provided clear and convincing evidence:
- that the registered the domain name <lufthansa.london> is identical or confusingly similar to the word mark LUFTHANSA for which Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration;
- that said trademark is in current use.;
- that proof of use has been submitted directly with the URS Complaint by Complainant as required by URS Procedure ¶ 220.127.116.11;
- that Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name;
- that the domain name <lufthansa.london> was registered and is being used in a bad faith.
While no formal Response was filed, Respondent was in communication with the National Arbitration Forum by email in which it stated “we are violating the trademark with the buying of the domain <lufthansa.london>. In this case, we would be agree changing it to the account with the rights for it, just asking for the money we spent buying it.”
This Panel finds that Respondent has no right to register Complainant’s trademark and then demand that Complainant purchase the domain name, even at only the costs in registering the domain name. Complainant as owner of the LUFTHANSA trademark is entitled to decide whether it will have a presence on any particular Internet domain.
This Expert accepts Complainant’s submissions that the disputed domain name <lufthansa.london> is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark LUFTHANSA. LUFTHANSA is a famous and well-known trademark operating worldwide.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. It has registered Complainant’s mark without permission and has no right to use it as a domain name.
Respondent has no identical trademark nor does it offer related services.
The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant. It is impossible to imagine how Respondent might use the domain name, which is identical to Complainant’s trademark, without pretending to be associated with Complainant.
LUFTHANSA is a distinctive mark. It is improbable that anyone would select the disputed domain name without intending a reference to Complainant and its services. The disputed domain name was clearly registered with the intention of appropriating Complainant’s famous trademark in order to suggest to the Internet users a connection between Complainant’s products and Respondent
It is probable that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the LUFTHANSA service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the registrant’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name
There is no substantive website established at the domain name address. Respondent parked the disputed domain. It is offered for sale on a parking site established by Godaddy.
The domain name <lufthansa.london> in the hands of a person other than Complainant presents a risk of abuse, particularly in the airline industry because of the possibility for fraud. Passive holding in such circumstances is evidence of a lack of legitimate rights in the disputed domain name.
The suffix ”London” refers to the capital city of UK and its use in the disputed domain name would give rise to an expectation that the domain name relates to the virtual representation/presence of Complainant and is used for an official website of Complainant. Furthermore London is a city frequently visited by Lufthansa as a regular destination.
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 name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
James Bridgeman, Examiner
Dated: May 19, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page