The Complainant is Sanofi, France, represented by Selarl Marchais & Associés, France.
The Respondent is wangli hong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 1, 2019. On August 2, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 6, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 7, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 8, 2019. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 7, 2019 regarding a Complaint deficiency. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 8, 2019.
On August 7, 2019, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Chinese, regarding the language of the proceeding. On August 8, 2019, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint and the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, in English and Chinese, and the proceedings commenced on August 14, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 3, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 4, 2019.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on September 18, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a French multinational pharmaceutical company with its headquarters in Paris, France. It ranks 4th in the world as the world’s largest multinational pharmaceutical company by prescription sales. It has presence in over 100 countries with around 100,000 employees.
The Complainant is the owner of various SANOFI trademarks in numerous jurisdictions including French Trademark Nos. 3835192, 96655339, 92412574, 1482708, registered on May 16, 2011, December 11, 1996, March 26, 1992 and August 11, 1988 respectively; European Union Trademark Nos. 010167351, 004182325, 000596023 registered on January 7, 2012, February 9, 2006 and February 1, 1999 respectively; International Trademark Nos. 1091805, 1092811, 1094854, 674936 and 591490 registered on August 18, 2011, August 11, 2011, August 11, 2011, June 11, 1997, September 25, 1992; United States of America Trademark No. 4178199 registered on July 24, 2012; Chinese Trademark Nos. 1154668, 1202329, 1330148, 1386355, 7993681 and 9504488 registered on February 28, 1998, August 28, 1998, November 7, 1999, April 21, 2000, February 7, 2011 and March 7, 2014.
The Complainant is also the owner of domain names , , , , , , and .
The Respondent is an individual based in Beijing, China.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 24, 2019. As at the date of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a page that allows users to sign up for gambling and entertainment services. At the date of this decision it resolves to a page that seems to be advertising financial services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name and the trademark SANOFI are confusingly similar. The disputed domain name contains “sanofi” in its entirety as the distinctive part of the disputed domain name. The additional number “2” does not affect the similarity of the domain name from the registered trademark. No rights or legitimate Interests
The Respondent has no connection with the Complainant or any of its affiliates and has never sought or obtained any trademark registrations for SANOFI. It, therefore, has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is also no relationship between the Parties and the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Registered and used in bad faith
The Complainant submits that there is no doubt that before registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s rights in the SANOFI trademark given its worldwide reputation and the wide variety of pharmaceutical products sold and advertised under its trade name in the world, including China. The Respondent acquired the disputed domain name to disrupt the business of the Complainant and/or to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of Proceedings
The Language of the registration agreement is in Chinese.
The Complainant requests that the language of proceedings be English on the grounds that the Complainant is (1) unable to communicate in Chinese; (2) the obligation to translate all case relevant documents would cause unduly delayed on the proceedings; and (3) the Respondent can understand English.
The Respondent did not respond to this request.
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that:
“Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”
The Center made a preliminary determination to:
1) accept the Complaint as filed in English;
2) accept a Response in either English or Chinese; and
3) appoint a Panel familiar with both languages mentioned above, if available.
The final determination of the language of the proceedings lies with this Panel.
The Respondent did not respond to the Center’s preliminary determination. This Panel decided in Z, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade,WIPO Case No. D2008-1191, that a respondent’s failure to respond to a preliminary determination by the Center as to the language of the proceedings “should, in general, be a strong factor to allow the Panel to decide to proceed in favour of the language of the Complaint”.
As set out below, the Panel considers the merits of the case to be strongly in favour of the Complainant. Translating the Complaint would cause unnecessary delays and expense. This factor leads the Panel to determine to follow the Center’s preliminary determination. As the only pleading before the Panel is in English, the Panel will render its decision in English. 6.2 Substantive Issues
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being use in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s SANOFI mark in full with the additional number “2”. The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) provides:
“While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of ‘proving a negative’, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.”
The Respondent has no business or any kind of relationships (i.e. licensor, distributor) with the Complainant. Considering the absence of a response by the Respondent to the Complainant’s contentions and the fact that the Respondent was granted neither a license nor an authorization to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel finds the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Based on the evidence, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent could not have chosen and registered the disputed domain name in good faith without having been aware of the Complainant’s trademark SANOFI, especially given its reputation and extensive use worldwide. The word “sanofi” has no meaning in the Chinese language, it is unlikely that the Respondent came up with this name on its own accord.
The disputed domain name currently resolves to a page that appears to be an online platform that allows users to sign up for banking services. As at the date of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a page that allows users to sign up for gambling and entertainment services. The disputed domain name can only have been used to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the webpage, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark of the service of the website contrary to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
For the above reasons, the third part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be cancelled.
Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: September 25, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy