Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. REDACTED PRIVACY et al.
Claim Number: FA1903001833043




   Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Köln, Germany
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte Dr. Hajo Rauschhofer of Wiesbaden, Germany

   Respondent: - Andrei Salomatin of Berlin, Germany


   Registries: Charleston Road Registry Inc.
   Registrars: GoDaddy.com, 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.
   David J. Steele, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: March 8, 2019
   Commencement: March 8, 2019
   Response Date: March 8, 2019
   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.


   Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]


URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS] 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 

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Respondent contends that his use is a legitimate use and that the subject domain name was not registered and used in bad faith because he "has purchased this domain for the purpose of making a resource with additional information, articles and example of usage of various APIs Complainant provides: https://developer.lufthansa.com/docs." Upon review of the information provided by Complainant about use of its API at the URI provided by Respondent (and other linked documents) the Panelist notes that in order to use Complainant's API, Respondent must enter into an agreement with Complainant. Respondent's use of Complainant's API is as a "Licensee"; the conduct of the parties with respect to such use is controlled by the terms of this agreement. Relevant to this case is Paragraph 6(3) of the agreement, which reads in pertinent part that: "The Licensee agrees that it will not: register any trademark, trade name, trade dress, service mark, or domain name that is identical to or confusingly similar to any of the Lufthansa Trademarks." As discussed above, the subject domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to any of the Lufthansa Trademarks. The registration and use of the subject domain name as described by Respondent plainly violates the terms of the Complainant's API developer agreement, and is expressly prohibited by its terms. Accordingly, the registration and use of the subject domain name for the purpose disclosed by Respondent cannot be a legitimate use and is a use in bad faith under the Policy.

[URS] 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 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. 


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.dev


David J. Steele
Dated: March 8, 2019



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page