Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Torsten Rssing

URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Torsten Rössing
Claim Number: FA1509001636710

DOMAIN NAME

<lufthansa.bio>

PARTIES

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

	Respondent: Torsten Rössing of Pattensen, II, DE

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: STARTING DOT LIMITED
	Registrars: 1&1 Internet AG

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.
	Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: September 8, 2015
	Commencement: September 8, 2015
	Default Date: September 23, 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").

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

Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]

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:
  (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 paragraph 1.2.6.1: The domain name at issue is composed with the Complainant’s LUFTHANSA trademark, together with the extension “.bio”. The domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The extension “.bio” is a non-exclusive wording referring to the area of the testing of alternative fuels by LUFTHANSA.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

URS paragraph 1.2.6.2: Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name, which is composed with the famous LUFTHANSA trademark. He has not been authorized to use the domain name and he has no identical trademark nor offers related services. Respondent has not made any demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in relation with a bona fide offering of goods or services. He is not commonly known under the domain name at issue and does not make any fair and noncommercial use of that domain name.

[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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

URS paragraph 1.2.6.3: Given the strength and worldwide fame of the LUFTHANSA Trademark, Respondent’s can not have ignored the Complainant’s rights when registering the domain name at issue. It is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003) Respondent, by using the domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website 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 its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location, in the meaning of the URS Procedure.

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:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

For these reasons, the Examiner finds that, Complainant made 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.

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:

lufthansa.bio

Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas
Examiner
Dated: September 24, 2015

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page