DECISION

 

Oura Health Oy v. UDRP Account / PDR Ltd Compliance Team

Claim Number: FA2508002170757

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Oura Health Oy ("Complainant"), represented by Hope Hamilton of Holland & Hart LLP, Colorado, USA. Respondent is UDRP Account / PDR Ltd Compliance Team ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ouraringuniverse.shop>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

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 September 2, 2025, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ouraringuniverse.shop> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 September 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 23, 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@ouraringuniverse.shop.

 

Also on September 3, 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 25, 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the ŌURA and ŌURA RING trademarks based on its ownership of the portfolio of trademarks described below and extensive use of the marks in its business as a health and wellness technology company that designs and manufactures smart wearable devices. Complainant also claims that its common law rights have been established through extensive use, promotion, and recognition of its products.

 

Complainant adds that it is the owner of an Internet domain name <ōuraring.com> which has been registered to Complainant since February 2015, and is used as the address of its primary website at <www.ōuraring.com>, which serves as the central hub for information, marketing, and sales of its products.

 

Complainant asserts that it launched its flagship product, the ŌURA ring, in 2015. This smart wearable device is designed to monitor various health metrics, including sleep, activity, and readiness. Since its launch, the ŌURA RING has garnered significant acclaim and recognition:

 

In 2018, Complainant received the Red Dot Award for Product Design; in 2019, it was awarded the MUSE Platinum Award for Product Design; TIME Magazine named the ŌURA RING one of the best inventions of 2020; the NBA used the ŌURA RING to help maintain player health during the 2020 season; Complainant was listed among Interbrand's top 30 Breakthrough Brands of 2021; Complainant received the Tom's Guide Hero Award in 2023, the Women's Health Fitness Award in 2024, and PureWow's Best Sleep Ever Award in 2025.

Complainant further asserts that it has partnered with high-profile organizations such as Aston Martin Red Bull Racing, USA Surfing, and the New York Knicks; and that its ŌURA RING has been featured in major publications including The New York Times, CNN, Forbes, USA Today, and The Washington Post.

 

Complainant adds that its substantial investment in marketing, product development, and brand partnerships has solidified its rights and reputation; it has invested heavily in advertising, including campaigns in Times Square and the Las Vegas Sphere.

 

Furthermore, over 2.5 million ŌURA RING products have been sold, and the company is valued at over $5 billion. 

 

Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the ŌURA and ŌURA RING rights in which it claims rights, arguing that the disputed domain name <ouraringuniverse.shop> incorporates the entirety of Complainant's ŌURA RING mark and merely adds the generic term "universe" and the Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.shop>. Parrot AI, Inc. v. Dominick Malzone, FA 2102001 (Forum July 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").

 

Complainant argues that neither the addition of the generic term "universe", nor the gTLD extension <.shop> sufficiently distinguishes the disputed domain name from Complainant's ŌURA RING mark, because under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), such additions are considered irrelevant in determining confusing similarity. See Virgin Enterprises Limited v. osama hamad, WIPO Case No. D2023-0795 (finding .SHOP may be considered in the "confusingly similarity" analysis and ordering transfer of numerous .SHOP domains).

 

Complainant adds that the similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark is further heightened by the fact that the disputed domain name closely resembles Complainant's legitimate domain name, <ouraring.com>, the only difference being the addition of "universe," which does not mitigate the likelihood of confusion.

 

Secondly Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that

·       Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, is not affiliated with Complainant, and has not been authorized to use the ŌURA or ŌURA RING marks, citing See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., WIPO Case D2000-0020 (finding no rights or legitimate interests where respondent did not apply for permission or license from complainant to use the mark);

·       the WHOIS record confirms that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name;

·       Respondent has chosen to remain anonymous on the Registrar's Whois, which further supports the conclusion that it lacks legitimate interests;

·       as shown in a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host a website that mimics Complainant's branding and purports to offer for sale products purporting to be ŌURA RING accessories, which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services;

·       on its website Respondent is engaged in a deliberate attempt to pass itself off as Complainant and profit from the goodwill associated with Complainant's marks;

·       furthermore, Respondent's exhibited website contains copyrighted images and content taken directly from Complainant's website, and such unauthorized use of intellectual property further demonstrates that Respondent is attempting to deceive consumers and capitalize on Complainant's reputation; and

·       the disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant's marks and is used in a manner that suggests affiliation or endorsement, which is misleading and unlawful so there is no fair use basis for Respondent's use of the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant thirdly alleges that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ŌURA and ŌURA RING marks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. See Jada Group, Inc. dba Jada Toys v. Mahir Hoover, FA 2140080 (Forum Mar. 10, 2025) (finding bad faith where evidence demonstrated the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant and its rights).

 

The fame and international recognition of Complainant's marks make it implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant's rights. The use of the disputed domain name to host a website offering ŌURA RING products and accessories demonstrates that Respondent intentionally sought to exploit Complainant's reputation.

 

Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent's website is designed to mislead consumers into believing they are interacting with Complainant or an authorized distributor and submits that such deception undermines consumer trust and damages Complainant's brand.

 

Again referring to the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, Complainant submits that it shows that Respondent is actively soliciting purchases of ŌURA RING products through its website, which constitutes bad faith.

 

The website's design and content are intended to attract internet users seeking Complainant's products and redirect them to Respondent's platform.

 

It is further argued that such conduct disrupts Complainant's business, erodes consumer confidence, and threatens to cause irreparable harm.

 

Complainant concludes by arguing that Respondent's actions stand to significantly damage the goodwill and reputation Complainant has built in its ŌURA and ŌURA RING marks and are likely to cause immeasurable harm if allowed to continue. The registration and use of the disputed domain name are clearly intended to capitalize on consumer confusion at the expense of Complainant and its customers; and Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and offer competing or counterfeit products is a clear example of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a manufacturer of tools that promote good health and in particular the very successful ŌURA ring product, 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 2260123, registered with a priority date of July 28, 2021, for goods in class 9;

·       European Union Trade Mark (EUTM) 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.

 

Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains a website at <www.ŌURAring.com>.

 

The disputed domain name <ouraringuniverse.shop> was registered on August 12, 2024. It resolves to a website that purports to offer Complainant's products for sale.

 

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

 

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 as 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 the ownership of the abovementioned trademark registration and extensive use of the mark in the sale of a product known as the "ŌURA ring". More than 2.5 million ŌURA RING products have been sold, and the company is valued at over $5 billion.

 

In the evidence adduced the ring is frequently described as the "OURA ring", without the macron above the Latin letter "0".

 

The disputed domain name <ouraringuniverse.shop> incorporates Complainant's ŌURA mark in its entirety in combination with the descriptive term "ring" and the generic term "universe" and the Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.shop>.

 

It is well established that it is sufficient for a complainant to show 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 neither the generic term "universe" nor the descriptive word "ring" within the disputed domain name prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant's ŌURA mark, and the gTLD extension <.shop> 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 legitimate interests in the disputed domain name 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 which is an interference with Complainant's business and consumers attempts to contact Complainant.

 

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.

 

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, with the addition of the word "universe" which has no meaning in context.

 

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.

 

The 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 purporting to offer for sale products such as "OURA RING GOLD", "OURA RING", "OURA RING PROTECTOR". It is also offering products which are not branded as ŌURA or OURA, which include "Smart Ring Protector". All products offered by Respondent are at significantly discounted prices. For example, the "OURA RING GOLD" product is offered at $95.81 discounted from $399.20.

 

The Panel finds therefore that the products which Respondent purports to sell on its website, if they exist at all, are on the balance of probabilities counterfeit products.

 

On the balance of probabilities therefore Respondent is using the disputed domain name which clearly infers a reference to Complainant's ŌURA mark and ŌURA ring product, as bait for Internet users, to attract them and misdirect them to Respondent's website.

 

Such use of Complainant's trademark within the disputed domain name as the address of the resolving website is on the balance of probabilities intentionally intended to attract and confuse Internet users and cause them to divert their Internet traffic intended for Complainant and misdirect the to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's web site, which constitutes registration in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

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 <ouraringuniverse.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

___________________________________________

 

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist

Dated: September 25, 2025