DECISION

 

Oura Health Oy v. Boston Bennett

Claim Number: FA2508002170756

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Oura Health Oy ("Complainant"), represented by Hope Hamilton of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is Boston Bennett ("Respondent"), Michigan, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <smartourarings.com>, registered with Wix.com Ltd.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 11, 2025; Forum received payment on August 11, 2025.

 

On August 26, 2025, Wix.com Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <smartourarings.com> domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wix.com Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wix.com Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On August 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 16, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@smartourarings.com.

 

Also on August 27, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 17, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the ŌURA mark established by its ownership of the international portfolio of registrations described below and strong common law trademark rights in the mark through extensive use in particular on a product it calls the "ŌURA ring" in which it also claims common law rights.

 

In an annex to the Complaint, Complainant has exhibited numerous examples of the extensive publicity for its products ŌURA ring has also received press coverage by several third-party press websites, including The New York Times, CNN, Forbes, USA Today, and The Washington Post. It was named the Official Partner of the New York Knicks. Complainant has also engaged in extensive advertising, including in some of the most globally viewed locations, including New York Times Square and Las Vegas Sphere.

 

As a consequence, Complainant has sold over 2.5 million ŌURA ring products, and the company is valued at over $5 billion. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name, <smartourarings.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant's ŌURA and the ŌURA RING marks because it fully incorporates the name "ŌURA ring" and merely adds the generic terms "smart," and the letter "s", and the generic top-level domain <.com.>

 

Complainant argues that the addition of these elements is insufficient to create a distinction between the Complainant's mark and the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Parrot AI, Inc. v. Dominick Malzone, FA2406002102001 (Forum Jul. 23, 2024) (finding the domain name confusingly similar to complainant's mark where "[t]he disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark PARROT AI in its entirety merely adding the generic term 'try' and the '.com' gTLD").

 

It is further argued that given the international promotion, fame, and success of the ŌURA and OURA RING marks, Respondent's misappropriation of ŌURA in the disputed domain name is highly likely to cause confusion. See AT&T Corp. v. Alamuddin, WIPO Case D2000-0249 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (when a trademark is well known internationally, there is a high likelihood that a domain name incorporating the trademark will create confusion).

 

Complainant secondly alleges that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and argues that

·       Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate or fair use because

·       Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name; Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by Complainant;

·       Respondent is using the disputed domain name to pass itself off as being authorized by or associated with Complainant and to profit from Complainant's goodwill.

·       Respondent cannot have acquired any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, because the WHOIS record for the disputed domain name shows, Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name;

·       Respondent has chosen to remain hidden using a proxy service to conceal its identity on the published WhoIs, and panels established under the Policy have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that a respondent is not commonly known by the domain name at issue, citing Bunge Limited, Bunge SA and Bunge Deutschland GmbH v. Ekaterina Kochergina, FA2212002024841 (Forum Jan. 23, 2023) ("UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name.");

·       Respondent is also not affiliated with Complainant in any way, nor is Respondent authorized to use the OURA or OURA RING marks or any formatives thereof, and any offering of goods or services under these trademarks would therefore be illegitimate and not bona fide. See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., WIPO Case D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where respondent did not apply for permission or license from complainant to use the mark);

·       a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to Respondent's website where it is using Complainant's copyrighted images to advertise and sell its products;

·       the exhibited screen capture shows that Respondent's website was clearly designed to trick internet users into thinking it is authorized by or associated with Complainant;

·       Complainant is engaged in passing off its goods as those of Complainant and marking an offering to sell the Complainant's products does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."

·       Respondent has no fair use basis to use the disputed domain name, which fully incorporates the ŌURA and the ŌURA RING marks without authorization. See Chanel, Inc. AG v. Designer Exposure, WIPO Case No. D2000-1832 (WIPO Feb. 15, 2001) (ordering transfer of <chanelclothing.com> and <chanelaccesories.com> upon considering arguments that the fact that Respondent has added the generic terms "clothing" and "accessories" to the CHANEL mark only increases confusion given the strong association Chanel has with such products and concluding the Respondent "can only have intended to profit from the Complainant's trademark.").

 

Complainant thirdly alleges that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that it cannot be argued that Respondent did not have direct and actual knowledge of Complainant and its ŌURA and the ŌURA RING marks.

 

It is contended that Registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to another's mark, despite actual knowledge of the mark holder's rights, constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii). See Jada Group, Inc. dba Jada Toys v. Mahir Hoover, FA2502002140080 (Forum Mar. 10, 2025) (finding bad faith where evidence demonstrated the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights).

 

Complainant asserts that the worldwide fame that Complainant's ŌURA and the ŌURA RING marks have achieved, demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant prior to acquiring the disputed domain name. See Abbott Labs. v. jianfeng wu / www.Juming.com, FA1611001703935 (Forum Dec. 23, 2016) (finding that the respondent had actual notice of complainant's rights in the SIMILAC mark because of the "worldwide fame that the SIMILAC mark has achieved, and the fact that Respondent's domain name features Complainant's SIMILAC mark").

 

Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to direct to Respondent's website purporting to offer ŌURA ring products and accessories is sufficient to show Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its marks. See Kellanova v. Francis Giroud, FA2403002087260 (Forum Apr. 4, 2024) ("In order to pass off as Complainant or an affiliate on its website, using its stylized mark and logo, Respondent had to have had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark.").

 

Furthermore, it is argued that Respondent is actively soliciting new ŌURA ring purchasers, because Respondent's website was clearly intended to give Internet users the impression that they found a legitimate platform associated with or authorized by Complainant, which negatively impacts Complainant's customer relationships.

 

It is submitted that it is well-established that use of a disputed domain name to pass oneself off constitutes bad faith use and registration of a domain name. Holley Performance Products Inc. and Powerteq LLC v. Qu Qiong Yao, FA2502002141957 (Forum March 21, 2025) (finding bad faith where the website associated with the domain, "appears to be gaining revenue by receiving commissions for sales made by consumers deceived into clicking the Amazon listings advertised on the Respondent's web site under the mistaken belief that the Respondent's website is the authentic source for the SUPERCHIPS products advertised.").

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a manufacturer of tools to help that promote good health and is the owner of an international portfolio of registered trademarks including the following which it uses to distinguish its products:

 

·       Australian registered trade mark ŌURA registration number 1657651 registered with a priority date of July 28, 2021 for goods in classes 9;

·       European Union Trade Mark ŌURA, registration number 013783601, registered on October 29, 2015, for goods in classes 9,10,14,35,and 44.

·       Japanese registered trademark, ŌURA, registration number 6625010, registered on October 7, 2022, for goods in class 9.

 

The disputed domain name <smartourarings.com> was registered on March 24, 2025, and resolves to a website offering a product that directly competes with Complainant's ŌURA ring.

 

There is no information available about Respondent except for that which is provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs for the disputed domain name and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this Complaint.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has provided uncontested convincing evidence of its rights in the ŌURA trademark established by its ownership of the above mentioned trademark registration and extensive use of the mark in the sale of a product known as the "ŌURA ring". In the evidence adduced the ring is frequently described as the "ŌURA ring", without the macron above the Latin letter "0".

 

The disputed domain name <smartourarings.com> is composed of Complainant's mark in its entirety, albeit without the macron on the letter "o" in combination with the generic word "smart", the descriptive word "rings" and the Top Level Domain (" gTLD") extension <.com>.

 

It is well established that it is sufficient for a complainant to establish that the domain name at issue contains the mark relied upon in its entirety, to satisfy the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). As the letter "Ō" with the macron is not permitted in ASCII code, and the ring is frequently spelled "OURA", an Internet user would on the balance of probabilities understand the element "oura" in the disputed domain name to be Complainant's mark.

 

It is not necessary for this Panel to decide whether Complainant has rights in the ŌURA RING mark as it claims.

 

In the circumstances of this Complaint, the generic word "smart" and the descriptive word "rings" within the disputed domain name do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant's mark, and the gTLD extension <.com> within the disputed domain name may be ignored for the purposes of comparing the mark and the disputed domain name, because it would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical element for a domain name.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ŌURA mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above, and in particular that Respondent is using Complainant's mark within the disputed domain name to attract and divert Internet traffic to Respondent's website on which competing products are offered for sale.

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.

 

Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant has shown that it has built a very strong international reputation in the use of the ŌURA mark to distinguish its "ŌURA ring" product, having sold over 2.5 million ŌURA ring products, and having grown the company to be valued at over $5 billion.

 

ŌURA is a distinctive mark, sometimes appearing as OURA without the macron on the letter "O".

 

The disputed domain is effectively a description of Complainant's product, referring to smart ŌURA rings.

 

On the balance of probabilities, the registrant of the disputed domain name was actually aware of Complainant and its mark when the disputed domain name registered.

 

The Panel finds, therefore, that the disputed domain name was in fact chosen and registered with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant's rights and goodwill in the ŌURA mark.

 

Complainant has exhibited screen captures showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a website at <smartourarings.com>, that purports to offer for sale rings that purport to be similar to Complainant's ŌURA rings. The products which Respondent is offering for sale are described as "COLMI smart rings".

 

Furthermore, Complainant has made an uncontested claim that Respondent's website contains Complainant's copyright images. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used primarily for the purposes of disrupting the business of a competitor.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <smartourarings.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.                    

 

_____________________________________________

James Bridgeman SC

Panelist

Dated: September 19, 2025