The Complainant is Institut Merieux, France, represented by Cabinet Lavoix, France.
The Respondent is Qi Hu, Huqi, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 23, 2020. On March 23, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 25, 2020, 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 March 25, 2020 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 amended Complaint on March 27, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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, and the proceedings commenced on April 3, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 23, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 30, 2020. The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on May 19, 2020. 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 medicine and public health company founded by the Mérieux family in France. It owns a range of companies that are working in diagnostics, immunotherapy, virology, biology, nutrition and health. It employs close to 15,000 people, presents in numerous countries and generates sales of over EUR 2.5 billion. The Complainant is the owner of various INSTITUT MERIEUX and MERIEUX trademarks in the world, including the relevant French trademark No.1547249 registered on August 22, 2009 in classes 1, 5 10 and 31; French trademark No. 154224302 registered on November 9, 2015 in classes 1, 5, 9, 10, 35, 36, 37,41, 42 and 44 and International trademark No. 1303400 designates China, registered on March 7, 2016 in classes 1, 5, 9, 10, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42 and 44. The Respondent is an individual based in China. The disputed domain name was registered on February 13, 2019. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved to a webpage of Guangzhou Service Trade and Service Outsourcing Industry Association, which is an industrial, local and non-profit social organization engaging in service trade enterprises, scientific research, and training institutions in Guangzhou. At the date of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to the same webpage as provided by the Complainant, but this webpage instantly redirects to another webpage that has links to various online gambling platforms. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks because the disputed domain name reproduces the MERIEUX trademark. The adjunction of the letter “j” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name are not sufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademarks. No rights or legitimate interests The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MERIEUX trademark and the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor authorized to the use the Complainant’s marks. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is being used for a website in relation to a company which engages in activities that are related to the Complainant’s activities, namely scientific research and training institutions. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is making an unfair commercial use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that there is no plausible explanation for the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and the Respondent did not have any personal attachment to the disputed domain name. The Complainant claims that it had research and found no evidence of any of the three non-exclusive methods by which the Respondent can show it has rights or legitimate interests over the disputed domain name under UDRP paragraph 4(c). Registered and used in bad faith The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent because the disputed domain name is being used for a website in relation to a company which engages in activities that are related to the Complainant’s activities, namely scientific research and training institutions. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract commercial gain in a malicious way, 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. The Complainant claims that the Respondent abuses the image and the relationship of trust existing between the Complainant and its clients looking for online information about the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds the disputed domain name 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 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 Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Considering the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no business or any kind of relationship (i.e., licensor, distributor) with the Complainant. Further, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The absence of substantive response and evidence 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, lead the Panel to find the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no 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 Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have known the Complainant’s well-known MERIEUX trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a website of Guangzhou Service Trade and Service Outsourcing Industry Association, which instantly redirects to another webpage that has links to various online gambling platforms. The disputed domain name is clearly being used to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s MERIEUX trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the services of the website in breach of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Under all the circumstances of this case as described above, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s MERIEUX trademark and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. For the above reasons, the third element 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 Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: June 8, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy