URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
FERRING B.V v. Gan Shou Dao Le Gei Ni
Claim Number: FA2203001986542
DOMAIN NAME
<ddavpm.life>
PARTIES
Complainant: FERRING B.V of Hoofddorp, II, Netherlands | |
Complainant Representative: JACOBACCI AVOCATS
Olympe Vanner of Paris, France
|
Respondent: Bao Zhao / Gan Shou Dao Le Gei Ni of Yang Guang, Jilin, II, CN | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC | |
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC |
EXAMINER
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding. | |
Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: March 2, 2022 | |
Commencement: March 3, 2022 | |
Default Date: March 18, 2022 | |
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules"). |
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration. |
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Clear and convincing evidence. |
FINDINGS and DISCUSSION
Procedural Findings: | ||
Multiple Complainants: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants. | ||
Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents |
Findings of Fact: FERRING B.V., the Complainant, is part of the renowned biopharmaceutical group FERRING and leader in specialty therapeutic areas including urology. Therewithal, the Complainant has 69 trademark registrations including “DDVAP†all over the world. The Complainant claims that the “DDAVP†trademarks are reproduced in the first position, the internet users will inevitably be led to believe that it would be owned or associated to the Complainant, they own a product formulation named “DDAVP MELT†and the addition of the letter “M†to the Respondent’s domain name combined with the gTLD [life] the confusion between the Complainant’s trademark and the said domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant alleged that no third party was authorized to register this domain name and the Respondent is not the owner of the prior DDAVP trademarks and domain names. Lastly, the Complainant also asserted the bad faith of the Respondent considering that the uses of the domain name redirect traffic to a third party’s pornographic website which tarnishes the Complainant trademark. No response was given by the Respondent. |
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: Determined: Finding for Complainant It is clear that the registered domain name of the Respondent is not identical to the word marks “DDAVP†for which the Complainant holds valid registrations and that are in current use [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant has stated that they have not authorized the Respondent for use of the “DDAVP†and trademark. The Respondent did not submit any evidence to the contrary that it has a legitimate interest for the usage of the “DDAVP†trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Respondent It is determined that the trademark of the Complainant consists of the letters “Dâ€, “Dâ€, “Aâ€, “Vâ€, â€Pâ€, while the first 5 letters of the trademark of the Respondent are the same, the last letter of the Respondent’s trademark is the letter “Mâ€. In this regard it is determined that there is a certain level of similarity between the trademark and the domain name and while the domain name “ddavpm.life†is directed to a pornographic website, it is also determined that there is pornographic content on the website named “dddigi.lifeâ€, however, there is no direct or indirect reference to the Complainant’s trademarks or products. On the other hand, contrary to the Complainant’s claims the domain name has not been found to create likelihood of confusion to the “DDAVP MELT†trademark. As known, the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure is applicable when the domain name dispute is an open-and-shut case of infringement. For the reasons explained above, it is determined that the subject usages is not a clear-cut infringement. FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds as follows:
DETERMINATION
After reviewing the parties submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant
has NOT demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing
evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be returned to
the control of Respondent:
|
Ahmet Akguloglu Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page