URS FINAL DETERMINATION
Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. REDACTED PRIVACY et al.
Claim Number: FA1903001833043
DOMAIN NAME
<lufthansa.dev>
PARTIES
Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Köln, Germany | |
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte
Dr. Hajo Rauschhofer of Wiesbaden, Germany
|
Respondent: - Andrei Salomatin of Berlin, Germany | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Charleston Road Registry Inc. | |
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC |
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. | |
David J. Steele, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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"). |
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] |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant [URS 1.2.6.2] 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 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant 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:
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:
|
David J. Steele
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page