Welcome to the largest and most talked about domain name forum in the World!

xblackhat · 04-30-2008, 06:09 AM

Here's the PDF for the federal court case against Lufthansa:

http://www.loffs.org/fma-v-lufthansa...-complaint.pdf

accentnepal · 04-30-2008, 11:46 AM

Many of those airline codes are also US states and/or country postal codes (also used for their domain extension).

Originally Posted by appeal_panel

... (we) cannot do other than resolve this uncertainty in favour of the Respondent ...

OMG ... a respondent actually getting the benefit of the doubt. I thought it was "guilty until proven innocent".

Originally Posted by appeal_panel

The registration of domain names is still a first-come, first-served system ...

Ahhh ... breathe the fresh air.

Yet, this whole deal undoubtedly cost the domain owners a lot of money (and they do not seem wealthy) and a whole lot of stress.

wot · 04-30-2008, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by xblackhat

Here's the PDF for the federal court case against Lufthansa:

http://www.loffs.org/fma-v-lufthansa...-complaint.pdf

Having read it I think Lufthansa are on a loser here- they will come out of this rather badly - I hope - and the wipo panel will look pretty stupid

Rob J · 04-30-2008, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by GreenGambler

Well then that is GREAT! The airlines buying them is good, WIPO stealing them and giving to the airlines is BAD.

In Lufthansa's defense, they tried many times over several years to buy the domain, FMA refused to even discuss it. That's of course not an excuse, if it's not for sale then it's not for sale but they did try. And it's a pretty crappy policy to completely refuse discussion at all, Lufthansa didn't have a whole lot of choices here. Either forget about it altogether or call WIPO, and they didn't want to forget about it.

bfluid · 04-30-2008, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by xblackhat

Here's the PDF for the federal court case against Lufthansa:

http://www.loffs.org/fma-v-lufthansa...-complaint.pdf

They have have an amazing case on their hands. No possible way they can lose. FMA will be the owner in the end.

**Mark** · 04-30-2008, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by scabies

In Lufthansa's defense, they tried many times over several years to buy the domain, FMA refused to even discuss it. That's of course not an excuse, if it's not for sale then it's not for sale but they did try.

Well - in FMA's defense ... He has always stated none of his domains are for sale

Anyone who knows of him can attest to that.

I just don't see why anyone would say this isn't generic is my biggest problem with the whole situation. Whats next ? Descendants of the creators of the English Language will come after all English domains ? As already stated - There are many Brands and Generic terms using these same initials.

Rob J · 04-30-2008, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Mark

Well - in FMA's defense ... He has always stated none of his domains are for sale

Anyone who knows of him can attest to that.

Right. I'm not defending all of this, just pointing out that this isn't as malicious as it's being portrayed. It wasn't "hey let's see if we can save a few million and hijack this domain", I think it was more out of desperation because all other avenues were roadblocked.

Charley · 05-01-2008, 12:38 AM

The company's original name was Deutsche Luft Hansa Aktiengesellschaft, that's why they want the name badly.

estibot.com · 05-01-2008, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by xblackhat

Here's the PDF for the federal court case against Lufthansa:

http://www.loffs.org/fma-v-lufthansa...-complaint.pdf

Wow....I especially liked the bit about Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party

And they are now going after the "Lufthansa" trademark, too.

This will be interesting, and should also draw some media attention. At least I hope so.

**Dave Zan** · 05-01-2008, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by Mark

I just don't see why anyone would say this isn't generic is my biggest problem with the whole situation.

Maybe a thing with few people is they think a so-called generic or descriptive
word or letters is generic or descriptive for everything and anything. They do
not work that way.

Using one of my previous examples, GE may be generic or descriptive for just
a pair of letters. But are they generic or descriptive for lighting products and
financial services?

In this case, it so happens the complainant was able to prove they do have a
trademark for the letters LH for their services. And it also so happens that the
panel "finds that such use is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services pursuant to Policy", even though one dissented.

Measures like UDRP and a civil suit are ideally intended to resolve disputes. Of
course, since we all live in the real world...

Originally Posted by scabies

Right. I'm not defending all of this, just pointing out that this isn't as malicious as it's being portrayed. It wasn't "hey let's see if we can save a few million and hijack this domain", I think it was more out of desperation because all other avenues were roadblocked.

That's also what I was thinking. It also just so happens there are a couple of
other decisions by various panelists that are consistently...questionable...

Mike · 05-01-2008, 06:34 AM

Reading the pdf, it's painfully clear that the Lufthansa has mainly succeeded because they've managed to throw their heavy weight around. If a corporation doesn't know its own history, maybe they have a bigger problem than reverse high jacking a DN that doesn't pertain to them in the first place.
Franky, even though aviation has always been a huge interest in my life, i wouldn't have made the connection to Lufthansa if someone had asked me "What does LH stand for?" without mentioning anything aviation related.
If this decision should stand after the trial, what's going to prevent the next company that can/could be abbreviated as "LH" to come after the domain?
At USPTO.gov i found 87 Records referring to TMs of "LH", none of them is referring to Lufthansa upon first glance. (i may have missed it though as i didn't go through each and every one).
This is just a huge mess, with a decision gone completely wrong and consequences that will, once again shed a bad light on domainers as the general public will see this is as "there's an internet nobody that's trying to hurt a reputable airline".

M.

gazzip · 05-02-2008, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by JMJ

If I were elequa I would get all my oil buddies together and buy the company, fire everyone, dissect it and park the planes in my backyard before I gave up the name.

LMAO - that would sort em out !!

.

Originally Posted by Mark

Whats next ? Descendants of the creators of the English Language will come after all English domains ? .

yeah. that'll be me, look out !!

.

PROXUS · 05-10-2008, 01:22 PM

LH is not a LV like in Louis Vuitton case where LV is a part of branding for decades.

it is good that this case is going before jury.

Coupons · 05-10-2008, 03:18 PM

This is an important thread for the future of all domainers. I try to develop all my domains, even if it takes a while. Loosing a domain because there is an uncertainty?
Not good...

*coreyg* · 05-10-2008, 04:17 PM

interesting read

Charley · 05-11-2008, 08:29 AM

So what is the update now, did he win back the domain ?

estibot.com · 05-11-2008, 09:44 AM

How fast is the American Judiciary system?? I wasn't expecting anything to happen before 2009...

Smart of them to try this in New York...they are probably hoping to get a Jewish judge, who won't be awfully pleased with the Nazi references in Lufthansa's original complaint....man, what where they thinking??

Rob J · 05-11-2008, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Charley

So what is the update now, did he win back the domain ?

The wheels of justice turn slowly. I wouldn't be surprised if this drags on for years.

Idees · 05-11-2008, 10:37 AM

That's horrible!

**IAmAllanShore** · 05-11-2008, 10:59 AM

The judge in this case:
http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1226

A little more info on the judge:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/bu...=1&oref=slogin
http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...0804203325.jpg
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1154..._law_more_news

Started back on 3/17 - notice of appearance for Lufthansa was only at the end of last week.

Seems to me that they have put a few too many of their eggs in the "1928 vs. Post WWII" basket, as it seems a little too shifty of an argument to base the entire COA on, but I wish them the best

-Allan

estibot.com · 05-11-2008, 12:03 PM

Well, it seems has just the right kind of expertise for this (from the Wall Street Journal article Allan mentioned):

Originally Posted by WSJ

Judge Kaplan, 61 years old, was born in Staten Island and graduated from the University of Rochester and Harvard Law School. He clerked for the late First Circuit Judge Edward McEntee before joining Paul Weiss in 1970. He made partner in 1977, specializing in antitrust and intellectual property cases. In 1994, President Clinton nominated him to the federal bench.

Nowhere are federal prosecutors feeling the heat more than in the lower Manhattan courtroom of U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.

"He's not only a hot bench, he's on fire,"

Charley · 05-12-2008, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by scabies

I wouldn't be surprised if this drags on for years.

That's not nice to hear.

Idees · 05-12-2008, 12:38 PM

Well heres a ridiculous idea I thought of, but it makes some sense.

The Judge or someone else with power in this case was probably paid by Lufthansa.

Here were their choices:

1) Lufthansa pays $1 million for the domain
or
2) Lufthansa pays of $100,000 in bribes

Did they choose #2?

Rob J · 05-12-2008, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Idees

Well heres a ridiculous idea I thought of, but it makes some sense.

The Judge or someone else with power in this case was probably paid by Lufthansa.

Here were their choices:

1) Lufthansa pays $1 million for the domain
or
2) Lufthansa pays of $100,000 in bribes

Did they choose #2?

No, they've tried for years to buy the domain (presumably for $1m+) but it just wasn't for sale at any price.

Idees · 05-12-2008, 01:05 PM

So that's more of a reason to choose #2

Originally Posted by scabies

it just wasn't for sale at any price.

05-01-2008, 12:38 AM	#158 (permalink)
Charley Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a 3 Bedroom Flat © Posts: 3,670 1,989.70 NP$ (Donate)	The company's original name was Deutsche Luft Hansa Aktiengesellschaft, that's why they want the name badly. __________________ † Did We Know That There Aren't Really Thousands Of Bands Who Might Be Interesting, We Will Get To Deleting All Bands That Aren't In Flames, Cannibal Corpse, Morbid Angel, Deicide †

05-01-2008, 06:34 AM	#161 (permalink)
Mike NamePros Expert Join Date: May 2005 Location: www.chrome.us Posts: 5,252 46.20 NP$ (Donate)	Reading the pdf, it's painfully clear that the Lufthansa has mainly succeeded because they've managed to throw their heavy weight around. If a corporation doesn't know its own history, maybe they have a bigger problem than reverse high jacking a DN that doesn't pertain to them in the first place. Franky, even though aviation has always been a huge interest in my life, i wouldn't have made the connection to Lufthansa if someone had asked me "What does LH stand for?" without mentioning anything aviation related. If this decision should stand after the trial, what's going to prevent the next company that can/could be abbreviated as "LH" to come after the domain? At USPTO.gov i found 87 Records referring to TMs of "LH", none of them is referring to Lufthansa upon first glance. (i may have missed it though as i didn't go through each and every one). This is just a huge mess, with a decision gone completely wrong and consequences that will, once again shed a bad light on domainers as the general public will see this is as "there's an internet nobody that's trying to hurt a reputable airline". M. __________________ Do you Chrome? [\|] Minisites Noomle Ad-Hoc Development & Publishing IntelBank.com<<Your Business & Your Money>>CreditHelp.TV American Pilot Center <- Learn to Fly -> PilotCenter

05-10-2008, 01:22 PM	#163 (permalink)
PROXUS NamePros Regular Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: US Posts: 210 179.00 NP$ (Donate)	LH is not a LV like in Louis Vuitton case where LV is a part of branding for decades. it is good that this case is going before jury. __________________ •

05-10-2008, 03:18 PM	#164 (permalink)
Coupons NamePros Regular Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Coupons.FM Posts: 394 30.12 NP$ (Donate)	This is an important thread for the future of all domainers. I try to develop all my domains, even if it takes a while. Loosing a domain because there is an uncertainty? Not good... __________________ FREE Hosting for 12 months at Jumpline - No catch! Spread the word! $7.99 domain registration and transfers

05-10-2008, 04:17 PM	#165 (permalink)
coreyg Business Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 3,251 882.69 NP$ (Donate)	interesting read __________________ ☻∙ IN Focus.IN is India's top-level domain on the Internet ☻∙ INsightDomain ☻∙ INdomaining // The news in Domaining ☻∙ Domain Names For Sale ☻∙ DrugTesting.in☻∙AmateurRadio.in

Welcome to the largest and most talked about domain name forum in the World!

Member Services

Forum Moderator

Forum Moderator

	RJ's ULTIMATE SALES THREAD ... a NamePros Exclusive ...	Forum Sponsor
	THE MOTHER OF ALL SALES THREADS! You won't believe the deals NamePros founder RJ is serving up on premium domain names, many never before listed for sale. Priced so cheap you can flip them for double!

04-30-2008, 06:09 AM	#151 (permalink)
xblackhat First Time Poster! Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1 4.00 NP$ (Donate)	Here's the PDF for the federal court case against Lufthansa: http://www.loffs.org/fma-v-lufthansa...-complaint.pdf

05-11-2008, 08:29 AM	#166 (permalink)
Charley Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In a 3 Bedroom Flat © Posts: 3,670 1,989.70 NP$ (Donate)	So what is the update now, did he win back the domain ? __________________ † Did We Know That There Aren't Really Thousands Of Bands Who Might Be Interesting, We Will Get To Deleting All Bands That Aren't In Flames, Cannibal Corpse, Morbid Angel, Deicide †

05-11-2008, 09:44 AM	#167 (permalink)
estibot.com Developer of Estibot Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,936 84.00 NP$ (Donate)	How fast is the American Judiciary system?? I wasn't expecting anything to happen before 2009... Smart of them to try this in New York...they are probably hoping to get a Jewish judge, who won't be awfully pleased with the Nazi references in Lufthansa's original complaint....man, what where they thinking?? __________________ Instant GoDaddy Auction Bargain Analyzer Available Domains Holiday Destinations ~ Christian Education ~ Hypnotherapist ~ Online PhD Psychology ~ Joululahja ~ Rollator ~ SEO blog

05-11-2008, 10:37 AM	#169 (permalink)
Idees Account Closed Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,258 105.20 NP$ (Donate)	That's horrible!

05-11-2008, 10:59 AM	#170 (permalink)
IAmAllanShore Forum Moderator Forum Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Esse quam videri Posts: 8,341 80.52 NP$ (Donate)	The judge in this case: http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1226 A little more info on the judge: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/bu...=1&oref=slogin http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...0804203325.jpg http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1154..._law_more_news Started back on 3/17 - notice of appearance for Lufthansa was only at the end of last week. Seems to me that they have put a few too many of their eggs in the "1928 vs. Post WWII" basket, as it seems a little too shifty of an argument to base the entire COA on, but I wish them the best -Allan __________________ I resolve to try to be more noob-friendly. RegisterBetter.com - in BetaMode Something Witty This Way Comes...

05-12-2008, 12:38 PM	#173 (permalink)
Idees Account Closed Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,258 105.20 NP$ (Donate)	Well heres a ridiculous idea I thought of, but it makes some sense. The Judge or someone else with power in this case was probably paid by Lufthansa. Here were their choices: 1) Lufthansa pays $1 million for the domain or 2) Lufthansa pays of $100,000 in bribes Did they choose #2?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)