URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


FERRING B.V v. REDACTED PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA2112001977999


DOMAIN NAME

<ferring.center>


PARTIES


   Complainant: FERRING B.V of Hoofddorp, Netherlands
  
Complainant Representative: JACOBACCI AVOCATS Olympe Vanner of Paris, France

   Respondent: Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, CA, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
   Registrars: Dynadot, 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.
   Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: December 22, 2021
   Commencement: December 23, 2021
   Default Date: January 10, 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



   Findings of Fact: Complainant is part of the renowned biopharmaceutical group FERRING, founded in 1950, leader in reproductive medicine and women’s health. FERRING group owns subsidiaries operating in almost 60 countries and markets its products in 110 countries worldwide. Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations FERRING all over the world (i.e 157 trademark registrations/applications). This trademark is widely used, and its reputation worldwide has been acknowledged by several UDRP Panels.

  

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 


Examiner finds that Complainant holds a valid national or regional trademark registration and that is in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark FERRING.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Panel notes that no third party was authorized by the Complainant to register the domain name: i) the disputed domain name was registered on September 29, 2021 while Complainant has intensively and widely used its trademark for more than 70 years and has registered numerous domain names composed of FERRING; ii) Respondent never answered to the contact requests sent on behalf of Complainant, mentioning that the disputed domain name is infringing a trademark; iii) Respondent has offered for sale the disputed domain name after its registration at the price of USD 5,000 on October 2021, and now for USD 299 which are excessive out-of-pocket costs for a domain name never used before; and iv) the disputed domain name is used to redirect the Internet users to a rotating series of pages, namely pages containing doubtful contents and pages including pay-per-click contents. Therefore, Examiner determines that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to 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 Complainant 


The Panel infers that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark FERRING due to Complainant’s longstanding use and reputation of the mark for more than 70 years. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of selling it. The Panel further finds that Respondent attempts to attract Internet users likely for phishing, identity theft or malware distribution but also for commercial gain: i) the disputed domain name redirects at times to pages containing doubtful contents blocked by antivirus software; and ii) Respondent expects that the computers/devices of Internet users searching for FERRING information will be “contaminated” and data could be therefore stolen; and iii) the disputed domain name redirects at times to parking services pages displaying adds, notably for pharmaceutical products which corresponds to the products provided by Complainant’s and its core business activity: not only there is a likelihood of leading the consumers into confusion, but the Respondent may obtain “click through” revenues.


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 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 SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. ferring.center

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm
Examiner
Dated: January 10, 2022

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page