WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Miguel Casajuana Case No. D2009-0018 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Frankfurt, Germany, represented by Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte, Germany.
The Respondent is Miguel Casajuana, Barcelona, Spain. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 9, 2009. On January 9, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to Dynadot, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 10, 2009, Dynadot, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 16, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 5, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 10, 2009.
The Center appointed Gabriela Paiva Hantke as the sole panelist in this matter on February 23, 2009. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a German corporation having its principal place of business in Cologne, it is well known in the field of airline services and provides such services to over 350 destinations in more than 90 countries worldwide. The Complainant operates the website “”, and has also registered several other domain names including the word Lufthansa, and also uses the domain name .
The Complainant is the registered proprietor of a large number of trademarks consisting or including the word Lufthansa in many countries as is shown in the Annexes of the Complaint.
The Respondent is Mr. Miguel Casajuana of Barcelona, Spain. The Respondent is in default because he provided no response to the Center.
According to data base searches provided in the Complaint the Respondent has been found to have registered 6204 other domain names.
The domain name appears to be used primarily to monetize type-in traffic visiting the parked domain name.
The Respondent has been also named as respondent in another WIPO UDRP domain name dispute. See, Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français v. Miguel Casajuana, WIPO Case No. D2008-1593 (). 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant, Deutsche Lufthansa AG., is a German corporation rendering services in the field of airline services since many years, tracing its origin to 1926.
The Complainant is the owner and is widely known by its trademark LUFTHANSA. The Complainant also operates a website under “www.”.
The Complainant has widely attested ownership of the trademark in the Complaint and has argued that the Respondent is not known by the domain name, has no relationship with the business area of the Complainant and has no ownership of trademarks or any other right in connection to the disputed domain name. The Complainant also asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds on the facts and evidence filed in the case that LUFTHANSA is a widely known and famous trademark in Germany and world wide.
The Panel finds confusing similarity because the additional word “airlines” is the core business of the Complainant, so in essence the disputed domain name can be considered confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, and identical to the Complainant existing domain name .
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions states as follows:
“Consensus view: While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.”
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not submitted a response and has thus not contested the Complainant's contentions.
The Panel notes that the website with the disputed domain name consists inter alia of travel and holiday related sponsored links which in the circumstances of this case cannot be considered to be legitimate use of the domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The fact that the Respondent registered a domain name identical to the Complainant's well known trademark is clear indication of bad faith, more over such bad faith is indicated by the Respondent adding the word “airlines” which meaning is essential to the Complainant's scope of business. The Respondent appears to have clearly known of Complainant's LUFTHANSA trademark and the business in which the trademark is used.
Further, the Respondent registered a domain name that, as explained previously in this decision, is identical to one of the Complainant domain names.
Linking the domain name to a pay per click website on the Internet may be considered in the circumstances of this case proof of bad faith registration and use in line with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Gabriela Paiva Hantke
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 9, 2009
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy