| kenny |
05-05-2008 10:43 AM |
"LH" is to short in my opinion to hold a enforceable trade mark on it.
I type in "LH" and "www.lufthansa.com" is the first domain that pops up. So, yes they use "LH" for business
Prehaps ICANN is just tired of having all these nice domains not being used and held for ransom. It doesn't look like they like the idea of respondent offering to rent the domain out.
Complainant also contends, in its Additional Submission, that Respondent?s business model essentially involves directing confused Internet users, who are in search of a legitimate business, to Respondent?s websites, which feature Respondent?s OXiDE search engine. The Panel may infer that Respondent is profiting from such use through the collection of click-through and pop-up fees for each redirected Internet user. The Panel finds that such use is likely to lead to confusion among Internet users as to Complainant?s sponsorship of or affiliation with the resulting websites and supports findings of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (stating that ?[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant?s marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant?s affiliation with the resulting search engine website? in holding that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Carey Int?l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 29, 2005) (?[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).?); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant?s site to its own website for commercial gain); see also Velv, LLC v. AAE, FA 677922 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 25, 2006) (finding that the respondent?s use of the <arizonashuttle.net> domain name, which contained the complainant?s ARIZONA SHUTTLE mark, to attract Internet traffic to the respondent?s website offering competing travel services violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). |
