Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. George Billis et al.
Claim Number: FA1604001669596
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany.
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte, of Wiesbaden, Germany.
Respondent: George Billis, of New York, New York, United States of America.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: The City of New York by and through the New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications
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.
Jeffrey M. Samuels, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 8, 2016
Commencement: April 8, 2016
Response Date: April 21, 2016
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 Deutsche Lufthansa AG is the owner of the trademark LUFTHANSA, a well-known airline. According to Respondent, the disputed domain name, lufthansa.nyc, will be used, “at some unknown time in the future,” for a fan-site and/or gripe site.”
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.
Complainant has established by clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LUFTHANSA trademark, for which it holds a valid national or regional registration that is in current use. The record in this case includes evidence that Complainant owns the required registration and that the LUFTHANSA mark is in use. The disputed domain name incorporates in full the Complainant’s mark. The addition of the term “nyc,” a geographical term that refers to the City of New York, is insufficient to defeat a finding of confusing similarity.
The evidence further supports a determination that Complainant has established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant notes that Respondent is not authorized to use the domain name, has no identical mark, and does not offer related services. While Respondent indicates that he plans to use the disputed domain name in connection with a fan or gripe site, he has not yet done so. Thus, it may not be found that he is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.
Finally, the Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the longstanding and widespread use of the LUFTHANSA mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s mark at the time he registered the domain name. Further, Complainant points out that New York is a daily destination for its flights, a fact that Respondent, a resident of New York, is presumed to be aware of. Thus, as Complainant contends, the disputed domain name “should be expected to lead to the virtual representation and website of LUFTHANSA and not to an obviously parking site.” Complainant also indicates that Respondent holds 1,280 domains “which may indicate intentional domainhijacking.” Respondent does not contest this.
There is no evidence 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 be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
lufthansa.nyc
Jeffrey M. Samuels, Examiner
Dated: April 21, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page