The Complainant is Sanofi, France, represented by Selarl Marchais & Associés, France.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Rate funds, [Name Redacted], United States of America (“US”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 2, 2021. On February 2, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 2, 2021, 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 February 4, 2021 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 February 5, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 February 9, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 1, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 3, 2021. The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on March 10, 2021. 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, Sanofi, is a company incorporated in Paris, France, and is a leading French multinational pharmaceutical company, ranking 4th world’s largest multinational pharmaceutical company by prescription sales. The Complainant is settled in more than 100 countries on all five continents employing 100,000 people. The Complainant is the owner of several registrations of the trademark SANOFI worldwide, including the US trademark SANOFI, registration No. 85396658, filed on August 12, 2011 and registered on July 24, 2012 for goods in international classes 5, 16, 41, 42 and 44. The Complainant also owns and operates several domain names which contain the SANOFI mark in its entirety, such as The disputed domain name was registered on January 26, 2021. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name The Complainant further asserts that the Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its trademark SANOFI or to register any domain name that includes the mark, nor does the Respondent have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant finally asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Numerous previous UDRP panel decisions have recognized the reputation of the Complainant’s SANOFI trademark, so the Respondent must have been undoubtedly aware of the risk of deception and confusion that would inevitably arise from the registration of the disputed domain name. This suggests that the Respondent acted with opportunistic bad faith in registering the disputed domain name in order to make an illegitimate use of it. Under such circumstances, the fact that the disputed domain name is currently not being used for an active website still falls within the concept of the disputed domain name being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name The Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled in relation to the disputed domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is clear from the facts of the case that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark and given the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not produced, and there is no evidence of the types of circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent in these proceedings. Consequently, the Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are also fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove both registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides examples of circumstances which shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online 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. Accordingly, for the Complainant to succeed, the Panel must be satisfied that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the circumstances of the case, including the evidence on record of the use and worldwide reputation of the Complainant’s trademark SANOFI, and the distinctive nature of this mark, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s mark. Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the fact that it chose a domain name, which could attract Internet users in a manner that is likely to create confusion for such users. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active webpage nor does it seem to have been actively used in other ways. However, as first stated in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, and repeated in many subsequent decisions under the UDRP: “the concept of a domain name ‘being used in bad faith’ is not limited to positive action; inaction is within the concept. That is to say, it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith”. See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Noting that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive and reputed trademark SANOFI in its entirety and the gTLD “.com”, that no Response has been filed, that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name through the privacy service, and that there appears to be no conceivable good faith use that could be made by the Respondent of the disputed domain name, and considering all the facts and evidence of the case, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also fulfilled in this case. 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 Knud Wallberg 1 The Respondent appears to have used the domain name of a third party as its “Registrant Organization” when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted partial of the Respondent’s name from this decision.
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Sole Panelist
Date: March 24, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy