Advertise on DNForum

  • Welcome to DNForum.com™ - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars
    If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the oldest global domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 45,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, using our free in-house built tools, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.

Manic Millionare

LH.com lost due to reverse hijacking

Status
Not open for further replies.
draggar said:
So then Lab Corp can sue Lufthansa for the domain, after they get it then Luteinizing Hormone sues Lab Corp for it, and it is just a vicious cycle where the only winnder is WIPO with all of the fees.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY!!! None has hands down claim to that name - maybe they should draw straws then debate that...
 
Domain Summit Asia 2026
accent said:
I am no lawyer, and perhaps there is more than I am seeing here, but I really do not understand the direction Elequa's attorneys are taking.

Simply put, as I read it, they are saying that since Lufthansa claimed in their USA trademark applications for "LH" and for "Lufthansa" (and in the UDRP) that Lufthansa was founded in 1926, and since the 1926 founded company ended in 1945 and that the present Lufthansa was founded in 1953, that this misstatement is enough to void BOTH trademarks and thus also the UDRP.

Nothing at all about the many, many other uses of "LH". Nothing about no intentionally misleading use of LH.com. Nothing about "bad faith" beyond a bare denial. No details and only one example without explanation of Lufthansa's alleged pattern of "falsely and fraudulently claiming trademark rights it does not own"

And a gratuitous attack on the "Lufthansa" trademark, which has no bearing on LH.com and further dilutes whatever little strength this case has.

A "LH" trademark can be held by a number of different companies if used for different products. There is no need to kill the trademarks to protect LH.com.

My (layman's) guess is that the judge will rule that the controversy between Lufthansa being founded in 1926 or in 1953 is not relevant to the granting of the trademark in 1993, leaving Elequa nowhere to stand.


I really would like to see some of our resident attorneys weigh in on this. On one side, by limiting the case to an attempt to void Lufthansa's trademarks the court will not reach the question of the generic nature of short domains, so if Elequa loses this will not matter much in legal precedent. But it would affirm the UDRP and may cause more anti-domainer decisions from that body.
Click to expand...

Probably just buying time. You only really get one bite at the cherry on any given issue. By bringing issues that have little chance of success but are totally unrelated to the real issues, they can easily have two bites at the cherry. The original case may even be dropped before it gets to court. The crucial thing is that filing will probably prevent transfer. It is better to stop it getting transferred in the first place if at all possible.
 
touchring said:
does anyone knows if airline or travel related ads are displayed on lh.com or searches on the search engine displayed airline or travel related ads?
Click to expand...
This from the udrp suggests they had been displayed:
Complainant contends that after contact, Respondent removed competing links to travel-related services
Click to expand...
 
I agree with accent, but for a different reason. It's a trademark case, yes, but that's the problem. It's a trademark case. Not a domain case. What I'm saying is that it doesn't turn on who owns the domain, it turns on who owns the trademark. I think they're playing right into Lufthansa's hands on a number of levels. By litigating the trademark, they're saying that's the property right. Which goes back to an earlier comment I made, use it or lose it. Courts are going to award domains to persons who make active use of them.
 
Last edited:
geez.. thats how I lost microssoft.com in wipo - the bigger they are the harder we fall...
 
holy smokes! that's a shocking ruling. makes crew.com almost look justified....
 
Something strange..
Domain was under Lufthansa control according to whois till 2008-05-29 and now again under FMA control
 
Fornit said:
Something strange..
Domain was under Lufthansa control according to whois till 2008-05-29 and now again under FMA control
Click to expand...

I dont see Lufthansa at all,but I can see on 29th May 2008 ;
Lawrence Mullins [email protected]
1640 Hempstead Turnpike
Legal Dept.
East Meadow
NY
11554
US
Phone: +1.5162969467

Now look at www.dlh.de

This record lasts for one day and after that back to usual. Wonder what caused that blip and who is it ??

Doing a search of the address shows it is address of Lufthansa but I am puzzled by the content of dlh.de
DG
 
Last edited:
domaingenius said:
I dont see Lufthansa at all,but I can see on 29th May 2008 ;
Lawrence Mullins [email protected]
1640 Hempstead Turnpike
Legal Dept.
East Meadow
NY
11554
US
Phone: +1.5162969467

Now look at www.dlh.de

This record lasts for one day and after that back to usual. Wonder what caused that blip and who is it ??

Doing a search of the address shows it is address of Lufthansa but I am puzzled by the content of dlh.de
DG
Click to expand...
Seems like DLH.de is Lufthansa IT department according to whois

Domaininhaber: Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Adresse: Lufthansa Basis Tor 21
PLZ: 60546
Ort: Frankfurt
Land: DE

Name: Harald Mansmann
Adresse: Lufthansa Systems GmbH
FRA AN/WIS
Im Taubengrund 6
PLZ: 65451
Ort: Kelsterbach
Land: DE
Telefon: + 49 69 696 71034
E-Mail: [email protected]
 
I note that Lufthansa are happy to use DLH yet are claiming LH . It never ceases to amaze me how large companies think that they own everything and if any person such a domainer dares take anything they want they dont like it.
I just hope that Lufthansa dont take LH.com for free.

DG
 
There is a real problem that the arbiters do not know squat about marks. The basis is the registration by Germans and their handing over a mark like "LH" to anyone. The US you cannot do that and there must be some International adjustment to this issue as well. The patent and trademark office would tell you cannot do more than register a graphic rendition of this as a mark and no claim to the "words" can be made. What horse shit. Poor Laurel and Hardy must be rolling in their graves. The company registers these because generics have no problem. It is the German government and possibly slack EU laws to blame here. They registered the actual characters as marks! Incredible!
 
I noticed that Elequa once lost qnx.info and took them to court and he won & still owns the domain name.
It will be interesting to see court decision in this case
 
onlinetv said:
There is a real problem that the arbiters do not know squat about marks. The basis is the registration by Germans and their handing over a mark like "LH" to anyone. The US you cannot do that and there must be some International adjustment to this issue as well. The patent and trademark office would tell you cannot do more than register a graphic rendition of this as a mark and no claim to the "words" can be made. What horse shit. Poor Laurel and Hardy must be rolling in their graves. The company registers these because generics have no problem. It is the German government and possibly slack EU laws to blame here. They registered the actual characters as marks! Incredible!
Click to expand...

Yes, but if it is registered in the US, the issue will be decided under the US legal system, and it won't cut any ice there. Registering of Trademarks really don't give you any extra priveledges under law, they are merely a record of registration. Apple might be able to stop you selling computers under that mark, but they could not stop you selling cars with that brand, but you would not be able use an exact replica of their Logo, even it hadn't been registered.

UDRP is just a disputes procedure. It is definitely not the last word on the matter.
 
Does anyone know if Future Media is going to fight this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Home
  • Forums
  • Events
  • Auctions
    • Back
    Top Bottom