The Complainant is Sanofi, France, represented by Selarl Marchais & Associés, France.
The Respondent is \ud55c\ub098 \uc774, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 22, 2019. On August 23, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same date, 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. 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 30, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 19, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 20, 2019. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on October 14, 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 pharmaceutical company headquartered in Paris, ranking 4th world’s largest multinational pharmaceutical company by prescription sales. The Complainant engages in research and development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products, principally in the prescription market, but the firm also develops over-the-counter medication. The Complainant employs 100,000 people in more than 100 countries on all 5 continents with EUR 34.46 billion as consolidated net sales of in 2018. The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks, such as French trademarks no. 3831592, no. 96655339, no. 92412574, European Union trademarks no. 010167351, no. 004182325, International trademarks no. 1091805, no. 1092811, and inter alia Korean trademark number 4002740490000, registered on September 30, 2003. The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names such as The Domain Name was registered on February 18, 2019. At the time of filing the Complaint, and at the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to webpage in Korean that among other things refers to Zolpidem products which are sold by the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations. The Complainant argues that the dominant part of the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark, and the addition of “365” does not prevent confusion. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not connected or associated with the Complainant’s business and the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent has left false information as registrant information. Moreover, there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant believes that the Respondent is likely to have had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark due to the fame of the Complainant, and the fact that there is a reference to the Complainant’s Zolpidem products on the webpage the Domain Name resolves to. Moreover, the Respondent has listed false contact details and not replied to the Complaint. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark SANOFI. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the dominant part of the Domain Name is indeed identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of “365” does not prevent confusion. For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible in this case for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”); see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of the Complainant’s trademark. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired any rights. The Respondent has left false information as registrant information. The Domain Name resolves to a webpage with reference to the Complainant’s Zolpidem products, but there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Based on the evidence, the Panel finds it likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark. The trademark is well known and there is reference to the Complainant’s Zolpidem products on the webpage the Domain Name resolves to. Moreover, the Respondent has listed inaccurate contact details and not provided a reasonable explanation for the registration. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 Domain Name Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: October 21, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy