URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Whois Privacy Protection Service by onamae.com
Claim Number: FA1605001674764


DOMAIN NAME

<star-alliance.club>


PARTIES


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

   Respondent: Whois Privacy Protection Service by onamae.com Whois Privacy onamae.com of Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, II, JP
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
   Registrars: GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com

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.
   Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: May 13, 2016
   Commencement: May 13, 2016
   Default Date: May 31, 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").

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 


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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Complainant contends that without permission to Respondent to use the trademark, he has no right to use it as the domain name, that Respondent has no identical trademark nor offers related services, and that Respondent is not known as the domain name. In the absence of a response from Respondent, the Examiner agrees with Complainant. 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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Examiner finds that Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s mark at the moment of registration especially because the Complainant’s mark was well known world widely. The Examiner finds from the contentions of Complainant that the prominent part of Respondent’s domain name STAR-ALLIANCE is confusingly similar to the trademark ‘Star Alliance’ which is one of the world’s largest airline alliances for customers worldwide. Given the circumstances, the Examiner holds that passive holding or non-use of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s world widely well known trademark ‘Star Alliance’ constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the third element of the URS.


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:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

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:

  1. star-alliance.club

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm
Examiner
Dated: June 1, 2016

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page