The Complainant is Sanofi, France, represented by Selarl Marchais & Associés, France.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 2, 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 4, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 6, 2019.
The Center verified that the 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, and the proceedings commenced on August 7, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 27, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 28, 2019.
The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on September 2, 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.
The language of the proceeding is English. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant Sanofi is a French multinational pharmaceutical company ranking first in Europe and the fourth in the world in its industry. The Complainant is active in more than 100 countries on all five continents employing 100,000 people.
The Complainant has a large portfolio of registrations for the SANOFI mark worldwide including:
- the European Union Trademark SANOFI (stylized), registration number 0596023, filed on July 15, 1997 and registered on February 1, 1999, for goods in IC 3, 5; and
- the International Trademark SANOFI, registration number 674936, registered on June 11, 1997, for goods in IC 3, 5.
The Complainant holds and uses a number of Internet domain name registrations which wholly incorporate the SANOFI mark, including , , and .
It is undisputed that the Complainant’s trademark SANOFI is well-known worldwide. See also Sanofi v. Sanofi India,WIPO Case No. D2019-0695, Sanofi v. Jamey Kirkes,WIPO Case No. D2019-0657, Sanofi v. Nicholas Woolf,WIPO Case No. D2018-1747 and Sanofi v. John Valley,WIPO Case No. D2018-2575.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 9, 2019, and, according to the evidence provided in the Complaint, it was used in connection with Pay-per-click (“PPC”) pages providing links related, inter alia, to betting, gambling and porn activities. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark SANOFI with an additional generic term, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In view of the Respondent’s default, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds rights in the SANOFI trademark.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the word “avec” at the beginning of the second-domain level portion. However, such addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity as the Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name.
Numerous UDRP panels have considered that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise) to trademarks in a domain name is not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.8 of theWIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
Further, it is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (e.g., “.net”, “.info”, “.com”, “.org”) may typically be disregarded for the purposes of consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name.
Given the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SANOFI, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not hold any trademark rights, license or authorization whatsoever to use the mark SANOFI, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or a bona fide offering of goods and services.
Under the Policy, “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”. See section 2.1 of theWIPO Overview 3.0.
The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions and has not come forward with relevant evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case.
There is nothing in the record suggesting that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with parking pages. Panels have constantly found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s marks or otherwise mislead Internet users. See section 2.9 of theWIPO Overview 3.0.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant holds trademark rights since at least 1988 and it is well-known worldwide in its field of activity. The disputed domain name was created in 2019 and incorporates the Complainant’s mark with an additional generic term “avec” (the French word for “with”). For the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, knowing the Complainant and targeting its trademark.
At the time of filing the Complaint the disputed domain name resolved to parking pages providing links to various services provided by third parties.
Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website 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 [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location” is evidence of registration and use in bad faith.
The Respondent was using without permission the Complainant’s well-known trademark in order to get traffic on its web portal and to obtain commercial gain from the false impression created for Internet users with regard to a potential affiliation or connection with the Complainant. In the same time, the use of the disputed domain name in connection with betting and porn advertising links is offensive for the Complainant and is tarnishing its trademark and goodwill associated to it.
Furthermore, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name under a proxy service and refused to participate in the present proceeding in order to provide arguments in its favor. Having in view the other circumstances of this case, such facts constitute further evidence of bad faith behavior.
For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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.
Marilena Comanescu
Sole Panelist
Date: September 16, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy