URS FINAL DETERMINATION

Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Kanteshwara Siddiah / Starbiztech, LLC et al.
Claim Number: FA1610001698181

DOMAIN NAME

<lufthansa.gdn>

PARTIES

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

	Respondent: starbiztech, LLC kanteshwara siddiah of Tucker, GA, United States of America

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Joint Stock Company \Navigation-information systems\
	Registrars:

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.
	Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: October 14, 2016
	Commencement: October 18, 2016
	Response Date: October 25, 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

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Complainants: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants
		Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents

Findings of Fact: The Complainant claimed that LUFTHANSA is a famous and well-known trademark. The Complainant also asserted that LUFTHANSA is operating worldwide and being impossible to say that does not know LUFTHANSA trademark. The complainant claimed that the respondent has no legitimate right or interest on the domain name and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

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:
  (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

It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is identical to the word mark “LUFTHANSA” for which the Complainant holds valid regional registration and that are in current use.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent for use of the “LUFTHANSA” trademark. The Respondent accepted that he has not legitimate interest for usage of the “LUFTHANSA” trademark. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed 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

Given the well-known status of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent was clearly well aware of the Complainant and of its rights on the trademark when it registered the domain name. On the other hand he accepted the violation of the registration of the domain name. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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.

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.gdn

Ahmet Akguloglu
Examiner
Dated: October 28, 2016

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page