{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006452",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "lufthansa.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Deutsche Lufthansa AG ( )"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Ronald Peeters"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant operates the Lufthansa airline servicing 350 destinations in more than 90 countries. It is a member of the Star Alliance Network flying to almost all countries in the world. Each year it carries over 50 million passengers. In addition to its passenger and cargo services, it provides aviation related services such as catering, maintenance, overhaul, travel related services and tourism services.\r\nThe Complainant operates the web site www.lufthansa.com and has also registered several other domain names including the word LUFTHANSA, like but not limited to “lufthansa.de”, “lufthansa.us” and “lufthansa.com”.\r\nThe Complainant is moreover the owner of several German, International, European Community and US trademark registrations consisting of the word LUFHANSA, the earliest one dating back to 1979. These trademarks cover passenger and freight transportation services as well as other related goods and services.\r\nThe contested domain name “lufthansa.eu” was registered by an individual person, Ronald Peeters, on July 8, 2006, thus well after the first trademark registration filing by the Complainant and the establishment of its business.\r\nAs no Response was filed, there is no information available about the Respondent except that set out in the Complaint. Complainant attached webpage printouts showing that the Respondent’s domain is name directed to www.lufthansa.eu web site containing information and sponsored links related to travel, hotel reservation and flights, even mentioning the name Lufthansa.\r\nComplainant has also forwarded evidences of an e-mail correspondence of its lawyers with the Respondent in February 2013, thus before the present ADR proceeding, in which the former asked for the immediate transfer of the domain name while the latter proposed to settle the matter and transfer it for an amount of Eur 3850.\r\nThe Czech Arbitration Court, failing to receive a confirmation receipt of the ADR proceeding e-mail notice from the Respondent, sent him the same by post on March 18, 2013. This last notice, however, was returned undelivered to the Provider. In the same way, no Response to the Complaint whatsover was submitted within the terms set according to the ADR Rules.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Under article 21(1) of Regulation EC No. 874\/2004 (the Regulation) the disputed domain name is subject to revocation if it is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by a national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and when the domain name a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name or b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\nRights\r\nThe Complainant must first establish a right in the domain name. Article 10(1) of the Regulation refers to the ownership of registered national and Community trademarks, geographic indications or designation of origin, and, in as far as they are protected under national law in the Member-State where they are held, unregistered trademarks, trade names, business identifiers, etc.\r\nIn consideration of the Complainant’s German, International, European Community and US trademark registrations mentioned above and after having reviewed the additional documents referring to Lufthansa AG’s business attached to the Complaint, this Panel maintains that the Complainant has shown having rights in the LUFTHANSA trademark and having acquired a substantial reputation and fame in the use of the aforesaid trademark in many jurisdictions throughout the world. Several WIPO UDRP decisions have acknowledged and confirmed the aforesaid circumstances before and this Panel does not see valid reasons to express a different opinion.\r\nThis Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the disputed domain name “lufthansa.eu” is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark LUFTHANSA.\r\nIt is well established that the specific ccTLD “.eu” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical with or confusingly similar to the name in which the Complainant has rights pursuant to art. 21(1) of the Regulation (see CAC case No. 00227 – kinst.eu; CAC case No. 00387 – gnc.eu; CAC case No. 00596 – restaurants.eu; CAC case No. 06303 – americaneagleoutfitters.eu).\r\nLack of rights or legitimate interest\r\nPanels have generally held that a Complainant is only required to establish a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interest and the burden to show the contrary then shifts to the Respondent. If the Respondent fails to show evidence of rights or legitimate interest, then it is deemed to have none (CAC case No. 06400 – BAC.eu; CAC Case No. 06303 – americaneagleoutfitters.eu).\r\nArticle 21(2)(a) provides that the legitimate interest can be demonstrated by use of the domain name or name corresponding to the domain name in connection with an offering of goods or services or demonstrable preparations to do so.\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered in 2006 and since that date the Respondent does not appear to have developed any business related to this domain name other than the aforesaid web site containing sponsored links to third party web sites. The Respondent does not offer goods or services himself; the sole activity he carries out is the redirection of Internet users to other web sites through sponsored links, presumably in receipt of click-through fees. \r\nNor is there any evidence that Articles 21(2)(b) or (c) apply. The Respondent has never been known by the name “Lufthansa”, nor is there any evidence that the Respondent has ever registered or applied to register this word as a trademark or service mark or acquired any different right in this name.\r\nThe Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to register and use the disputed domain name, nor is there any commercial or social relationship between the parties.\r\nThere is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, while on the contrary his purpose to get a commercial gain from the disputed domain name registration and use is evident for the reasons reported above and in the below paragraph concerning bad faith.\r\nIn the Panel’s view, the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interest, while there is no rebuttal by the Respondent, nor can any evidence of rights or legitimate interest be inferred from the correspondence between the parties attached to the Complaint.\r\nAccordingly, the Panel concludes that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the domain name.\r\nBad faith\r\nAs lack of rights or legitimate interest is an alternative requirement to registration or use of the domain name in bad faith, there would be no need for the Panel to address the latter issue.\r\nThis Panel however wishes to remark that the bad faith of the Respondent is hereby blatant for two reasons.\r\nFirst, due to LUFTHANSA trademark fame, there can hardly be any doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark and associated reputation. This Panel maintains that, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the Respondent chose and registered the disputed domain name because of its identity with the Complainant’s mark with the intention of taking advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill and trademark reputation in order to divert Internet traffic intended for the Complainant away to the Respondent’s site.\r\nThe web site at the disputed domain name address contains a number of sponsored links which redirect Internet users to web sites offering travels, holidays and flights, thus services in competition with the Complainant’s official web site. The Respondent therefore trades on the goodwill of the Complainant and its trademark reputation to attract more traffic to his web site and, on the balance of probabilities, to generate revenue through pay-per-click links.\r\nSecond, the correspondence between the parties attached to the Complaint shows that the Respondent offered the Complainant the disputed domain name for sale at a price which is much higher than the standard fees generally requested for a domain name registration and maintenance. These circumstances show that the disputed domain name was also registered for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring it to the legitimate holder of LUFTHANSA trademark.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe domain name LUFTHANSA.EU be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2013-05-28 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: lufthansa.eu\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Germany, country of the Respondent: The Netherlands\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: 08 July 2006\r\n\r\nIV.    Rights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision:\r\n\r\nGerman Trademark LUFTHANSA (Reg.-No: 990835)\r\nClasses: 36; 37; 39; 41; 42\r\nFiling date: 02.04.1979 - Registration date: 25.09.1979\r\n\r\nGerman Trademark LUFTHANSA (Reg.-No: 990834)\r\nClasses: 36; 39; 41; 42\r\nFiling date: 02.04.1979 - Registration date: 25.09.1979\r\n\r\nGerman Trademark LUFTHANSA (Reg.-No: 39871924.1)\r\nClasses: 06; 08; 09; 14; 16; 18; 20; 21; 24; 25; 26; 28\r\nFiling date: 10.12.1998 - Registration date: 12.04.1999\r\n\r\nGerman Trademark LUFTHANSA (Reg.-No: 39871923.3)\r\nClasses: 06; 08; 09; 14; 16; 18; 20; 21; 24; 25; 26; 28\r\nFiling date: 10.12.1998 - Registration date: 12.04.1999\r\n\r\nInternational Trademark LUFTHANSA (Reg.-No: 450006)\r\nClasses: 36; 37; 39; 41; 42\r\nRegistration date: 06.12.1979\r\n\r\nInternational Trademark LUFTHANSA (Reg.-No: 722971)\r\nClasses: 06; 08; 09; 14; 16; 18; 20; 21; 24; 25; 26; 28\r\nRegistration date: 05.08.1999 \r\n\r\nEuropean Community Trademark LUFTHANSA (Reg.-No: 001212539)\r\nClasses: 06; 08; 09; 14; 16; 18; 20; 21; 24; 25; 26; 28; 36; 37; 39; 41; 42\r\nFiling date: 11.06.1999 – Registration date: 26.02.2001\r\n\r\nEuropean Community Trademark LUFTHANSA (Reg.-No: 001210665)\r\nClasses: 06; 08; 09; 14; 16; 18; 20; 21; 24; 25; 26; 28; 36; 37; 39; 41; 42\r\nFiling date: 11.06.1999 – Registration date: 29.11.2000\r\n\r\nUS-Trademark LUFTHANSA (Reg.-No: 74383260)\r\nClasses: IC 039. US 100 105\r\nFiling Date: 27.04.1993 – Registration date: 20.08.1996\r\n\r\nUS-Trademark LUFTHANSA (Reg.-No: 1871600)\r\nClasses: IC 039. US 100 105\r\nFiling Date: 27.04.1993 – Registration date: 03.01.1995\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is identical to the protected rights of the Complainant\r\n\r\nVII.  Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. No\r\n        2. Why: The Respondent does not appear to have developed any business related to this domain name other than the aforesaid web site containing sponsored links to third party web sites. The Respondent does not offer goods or services himself; the sole activity he carries out is the redirection of Internet users to other web sites through sponsored links, presumably in receipt of click-through fees. \r\nThe Respondent has never been known by the name “Lufthansa”, nor is there any evidence that the Respondent has ever registered or applied to register this word as a trademark or service mark or acquired any different right in this name.\r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. Yes\r\n        2. Why: Due to LUFTHANSA trademark fame, there can hardly be any doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark and associated reputation. On the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the Respondent chose and registered the disputed domain name because of its identity with the Complainant’s mark with the intention of taking advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill and trademark reputation in order to divert Internet traffic intended for the Complainant away to the Respondent’s site.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant:\r\nThe correspondence between the parties attached to the Complaint shows that the Respondent offered the Complainant the disputed domain name for sale at a price which is much higher than the standard fees generally requested for a domain name registration and maintenance. This circumstance shows that the disputed domain name was also registered for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring it to the legitimate holder of LUFTHANSA trademark.\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: No response was filed by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nXII.  [If transfer to Complainant] Is Complainant eligible? Yes\r\nThe Complainant is an undertaking having its registered office in Germany, thus within the European Community. It therefore satisfies the eligibility criteria set out in Article 4(2)(b) of the Regulation.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}