Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Global LLC
Claim Number: FA1704001728186
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte of Wiesbaden, Germany.
Respondent: Global Domains Corp LLC of San Marino, International, SM.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: REVIEWS Registry
Registrars: Dynadot, LLC
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.
Omar Haydar, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 21, 2017
Commencement: April 24, 2017
Default Date: May 11, 2017
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.reviews>. There is one Complainant and one (or more) Respondent, and no domain names were dismissed from this complaint.
The Respondent has registered the domain name <lufthansa.reviews>. The Complainant has suggested the identity of the Respondent behind the privacy service as being a well known domain grabber, and cited various cases involving said individual, but has failed to substantiate such claim, so such suggestion will be disregarded for the purposes of this decision. The Complainant has also suggested that the suffix “reviews” creates an inference of connection to the Complainant, but this is not at all persuasive, as a website could lawfully provide information or reviews about a trademarked entity without infringing on the trademark. Finally, the Complainant has suggested that they have been the subject of fraud in such circumstances, but there are no facts to suggest as such in this case.
Complainant, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, is the owner of trademark Lufthansa, which it has registered in various jurisdictions since at least 1999. 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. But the Complainant could have a legitimate right based on the content of the website when and if it should go live.
The Examiner finds that the evidence does not prove the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Although the Examiner finds that the domain could give 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), this is not a sufficient basis on a standalone basis to establish bad faith, especially considering the nature of the domain, being reviews, which could have a lawful, non-fringing use. If the Complainant were to substantiate others of their aforementioned claims, or alternatively, if the domain, which was just registered within the past month, were to be activated and have content which would support the claims of Complainant, bad faith could be established. But the claim on its merits does not establish bad faith.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has NOT demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
Omar Haydar, Examiner
Dated: May 11, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page