URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. LIN HAO
Claim Number: FA1606001679906
DOMAIN NAME
<lufthansa.store>
PARTIES
| Complainant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Frankfurt, Germany | |
|
Complainant Representative: Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte of Wiesbaden, Germany
|
| Respondent: LIN HAO Hao LIN of Beijing, Beijing, II, CN | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
| Registries: DotStore Inc. | |
| Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) |
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. | |
| Mr. Tomáš Abelovský, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
| Complainant Submitted: June 17, 2016 | |
| Commencement: June 17, 2016 | |
| Default Date: July 5, 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: Complainant has provided the following initial explanatory text, in his Complaint: “The Respondent’s domain names lufthansa.store is identical and confusingly similar to the trademark LUFTHANSA. LUFTHANSA is a famous and well-known trademark operating worldwide, being impossible to say that one does not know it (see LUFTHANSA.koeln, NAF16155255; STARALLIANCE.tokyo, FA1408001574053, LUFTHANSA.yokohama, NAF1580504; LUFTHANSAv.Guliev FA1559476; LUFTHANSAv.Niklaes FA1562639; LUFTHANSAv.MBI FA1566236; LUFTHANSAv.Gandiyork, FA1549328). It is clear that someone who uses an identical trademark that evidently belongs to a third party to “build” a domain name where the only difference is the suffix .store, knows the trademark since it is impossible to coin an identical word by coincidence. The Respondent has no permission, no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names. The Respondent has no identical trademark nor offers related services. The Respondent’s email is associated with 315 other domains and identity is hidden by a privacy service. The Respondent’s domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. It is indicated that bad faith exists where the 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 (WIPO No. D2006-0700). The Respondent clearly registered the domain name, appropriating the Complainant’s famous trademark, in order to suggest to the Internet user a connection between the Complainant’s products and Respondent’s domain which simply does not exist. This is misleading and supports finding of bad faith registration (WIPO No. D2005-0072). Additionally, Panels have also noted that passive holding or non-use of a domain name is evidence of a lack of legitimate rights in the domain name (NAF FA-097328; NAF FA-96248). The use of the domain name cannot be considered to constitute a legitimate noncommercial use of the domain name or a use connected with a bona fide offering of goods or services either (WIPO No. D2008-1065 or D2005-1090). The suffix “store” refers to the shop and location where users expect to buy LUFTHANSA related products. LUFTHANSA offers a great variety of goods and services, see. e.g. official LUFTHANSA store at www.worldshop.eu. Therefor it should be expected to lead to the virtual representation and website of LUFTHANSA and not to an obviously parking site. It is impossible to imagine how the respondent should use that combination of words, if not pretending to act as an LUFTHANSA-official. LUFTHANSA is a non-generic name. The consensus view of panels is that the domain name needs to be genuinely used and not to trade off third-party rights. The Respondent clearly registered the Domain to catch the attention of travelers who wish to buy Lufthansa related products or services. LUFTHANSA has frequently been the subject of fraud by people pretending acting as LUFTHANSA officials sending fake offers, tickets.” Complainant has provided following evidences: (1) Proof of the use for the trademarks; (2) the Domain Name’ websites screenshot; and (3) the Complainants’ trademark records (EUIPO, WIPO, USPTO, DPMA). Respondent has not provided its Response to the Complaint. |
|
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has proven that he owns various registered trademarks “LUFTHANSA." The Domain Name reproduce these trademarks. Also, the gTLDs “.store” does not reduce the similarity with the Complainant's trademark. Moreover, it imitates the official business of the Complainant. Therefore, the registered Domain Name is identical / confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds valid trademark registrations, which are in current use. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has proven that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use his trademarks in any way.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant acknowledged that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith. Complainant has thus satisfied paragraph 1.2.6.3 of the URS Procedure. It can be confirmed, that Complainant's trademark is used in connection with the goods and services named in its numerous registration certificates, including the registration record submitted in this matter. Respondent must have been aware of these trademarks (goods and products) at the time of the registration of the Domain Name. Complainant’s trademark/business name is notoriously famous in the Air Transport Industry. Also, the Respondent’s email is associated with 315 other domain names registrations and his identity is hidden by a privacy service. Therefore, Respondent must have known that the registration of the Domain Name was conducted in bad faith. Moreover, the Respondent has prevented the Complainant from using/reflecting its trademark in a corresponding Domain Name. A passive possession of identical Domain Name consisting of protected word mark and without any manifest proof of purpose towards commercial benefit, can't represent a good faith use under overall circumstances presented in this case. 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:
|
Mr. Tomáš Abelovský Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page