Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Whois Privacy Protection Service by onamae.com et al.

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 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.

The record makes clear that “the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that [it] is in current use,” and that the registration is identical to the second-level portion of the disputed domain name, as required by paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the URS. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the first element of the URS.

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

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It further contends that Respondent is neither authorized by Complainant nor entitled to use the Complainant’s trademark as domain name. The Respondent has no identical trademark nor offers related services. The Respondent argues that it has been used a domain name “star-alliance.info” since 2009 without causing confusion with Complainant. The Examiner determines that the Respondent’s defense does not justify the Respondent’s legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the second element of the URS.

[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.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s e-mail is associated with over 1,000,000 other domains. It also avers that it is impossible to imagine how Respondent should use the combination of the STARALLIANCE and the suffix “tokyo,” if not pretending to act as an STARALLIlANCE-official. The Complainant further contends that Respondent clearly registered the disputed domain name, appropriating the Complainant’s famous trademark in order to suggest to the Internet user a connection between the Complainant’s products and the disputed domain name. The Respondent defends that it did not register the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling it. It further contends that Complainant should have registered the disputed domain name in the registration period of the commercial priority. It also contends that it has been used the “star-alliance.info” domain name for a long period of time since 2009. Under the URS Procedure, essentially the same considerations that make it clear that Registrant has no rights to or legitimate interests in the contested domain names are also pertinent to an analysis of whether the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. See URS Procedure ¶ 1.2.6.3 a.-d. and ¶ 5.7. A finding of bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name therefore follows directly from the above discussion of the absence of any rights or legitimate interests accruing to Registrant from the facts presented in the Complaint and Response filed in this proceeding. The Examiner finds that the Respondent’s defense in terms of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name is not persuasive enough to defend the Complainant’s contentions. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the third element of the URS.

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it 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:

staralliance.tokyo

	Complainant Submitted: August 8, 2014
	Commencement: August 20, 2014
	Response Date: September 3, 2014
	Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration 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: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany
	Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte Hajo Rauschhofer of Wiesbaden, Germany

	Respondent: Company work yasunobu haijima of shizuoka-pref, Japan
	Respondent Representative: Yasunobu Haijima of shizuoka-pref, Japan

	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

	Registries: GMO Registry, Inc.
	Registrars: