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:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

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.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant's web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 


It is determined that the trademark of the Complainant consists of the letters “D”, “D”, “A”, “V”, ”P”, 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 “M”. 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.life”, 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:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

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:

  1. ddavpm.life

 

Ahmet Akguloglu
Examiner
Dated: March 23, 2022

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page