Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2015-2346
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:34:49+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Deutsche Lufthansa AG of Cologne, Germany, represented by Rauschhofer Rechtsanwälte, Germany.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp of Nassau, Bahamas / Ryan G Foo, PPA Media Services of Santiago, Chile.
The disputed domain name <lufthasna.com> is registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 23, 2015. On December 23, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 24, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 4, 2016 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 11, 2016.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 12, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 1, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 2, 2016.
The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on February 11, 2016. 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.
The following facts, relevant to the Panel’s determination, are set forth in the Complaint and are not disputed by the Respondent.
The Complainant is a large and very well-known airline based in Germany and tracing its origins back to 1926. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations around the world for the mark LUFTHANSA (the “Mark”), e.g., International Trade Mark Reg. No. 450006 (issued December 6, 1979) and United States Reg. No. 1871600 (issued January 3, 1995). Apart from the formal trademark registrations, the Mark is known worldwide and easily recognized.
According to the WhoIs database, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 4, 2004.
The Complainant has provided evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to set up a website providing links to products (namely, suitcases, trolleys and luggage) that are competitive to similar products that the Complainant sells in its “Worldshop”.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name includes an obvious misspelling of the Mark, i.e., that the Respondent has engaged in “typosquatting”. According to the Complainant, the sole use of the wording is made to attract Internet users who have mistakenly typed the wrong word when seeking to visit the Complainant’s website.
The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because, among other things, the Complainant never granted the Respondent any rights to use the Mark, or any misspellings thereof. Moreover, the Respondent is not known as “lufthasna”. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, but instead uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to an entirely different site, namely, “www.taschenkaufhaus.de”.
Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been registered and is used by the Respondent in bad faith. Because of the Mark’s great distinctiveness, it is inconceivable, says the Complainant, that the Respondent did not have actual notice of the Complainant’s trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant claims that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because its use of the disputed domain name is to intentionally attempt to divert, for commercial gain, Internet users to one or more competing websites (some of which are third party “sponsors” and many of which presumably compensate the Respondent for driving Internet traffic to their sites) in an effort to confuse and mislead consumers.
The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.
This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
The Panel finds the Complainant has established rights in the Mark based on the Complainant’s long-standing use of the Mark as well as numerous trademark registrations in various jurisdictions around the world.
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Mark, with only one minor alteration (the interposition of the letters “N” and “S”) and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. When a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark, that is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. D2000-1525. Furthermore, the addition of the gTLD “.com” is of no legal significance from the standpoint of comparing the disputed domain name to the Mark, because use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants and “.com” does not serve to identify a specific enterprise as a source of goods or services. SBC Communications Inc. v. Fred Bell aka Bell Internet, WIPO Case No. D2001-0602. Similarly, UDRP panels have consistently held that “a mere addition of a minor misspelling or typographical error of a mark, does not create a new or different mark in which Respondent has legitimate rights.” Hobson, Inc. v. Peter Carrington a/k/a Party Night Inc, WIPO Case No. D2003-0317. Such insignificant modifications to trademarks are commonly referred to as “typosquatting” or “typo-piracy,” as such conduct seeks to wrongfully take advantage of errors by users in typing domain names into their web browser’s location bar. See, Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini d/b/a Country Walk, WIPO Case No. D2003-0161. “Domain names which constitute typo-squatting are confusingly similar by definition; it is this similarity which makes them attractive.”, Dell Computer Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, WIPO Case No. D2002-0423; see also American Home Products Corporation v. Privateer Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2000-0455 (ADDVIL.com held confusingly similar to ADVIL).
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent. See, Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Miniatures Town, WIPO Case No. D2014-0948, citing WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1 (after the complainant makes a prima facie case, the burden of showing rights or legitimate interests in the domain name shifts to the respondent).
The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. By failing to respond to the Complaint, the Respondent did not overcome its burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests, and no other facts in the record tip the balance in the Respondent's favor.
In this case, there are several indicators concerning the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is there any evidence in the record showing the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice of the dispute. Joining with numerous previous panels, this Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name to establish a web page to redirect to websites for competitive products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in regard to the disputed domain name.
These criteria are not exclusive and the Panel may conclude that the Respondent has acted in bad faith where other circumstances reveal the bad faith nature of the registration and use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel concludes, on the evidence submitted by the Complainant, that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. As an initial matter, the Respondent’s mere act of typosquatting presents ample evidence of bad faith in the circumstances of this case. Briefing.com Inc. v. Cost New Domain Manager, WIPO Case No. D2001-0970 (finding that “Respondent has demonstrated bad faith by engaging in ‘typo-piracy’ to confuse Internet users and draw them away from Complainant’s web site”).
Additionally, the Respondent’s bad faith in registering the disputed domain name is supported by the following undisputed facts: (1) the Respondent registered a domain name for use with competitive products that is confusingly similar to the Mark which Complainant has been using for many years and which became the subject of registrations in several jurisdictions around the world prior to the time of the registration of the disputed domain name; (2) there is no relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant and the Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Mark for any purpose, including in a domain name; and (3) the Respondent was likely aware of the Mark and yet adopted it for use in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because its use of the disputed domain name is to intentionally attempt to divert, for commercial gain, Internet users to one or more competing websites (some of which are third party “sponsors” and many of which presumably compensate the Respondent for driving Internet traffic to their sites) in an effort to confuse and mislead consumers. Net2phone Inc. v. Dynasty System Sdn Bhd, WIPO Case No. D2000-0679.
The Panel therefore holds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <lufthasna.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.