The Complainant is Compagnie Mérieux Alliance, France, represented by Cabinet Lavoix, France.
The Respondent is Chenxi Xu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 2, 2021. On March 2, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 4, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the relevant contact details. On March 21, 2021, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On March 23, 2021, 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 satisfies 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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 29, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for submitting a response was April 18, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center issued notice of the Respondent’s default on April 19, 2021. The Center appointed Joseph Simone as the sole panelist in this matter on April 26, 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, Compagnie Mérieux Alliance, has over 100 years of experience in biological science and the development of diagnostic tests. As of today, the Complainant employs around 20,000 people and has a presence in almost 45 countries with sales over EUR 3.2 billion. The Complainant has an extensive global trademark portfolio of marks including the term MERIEUX ALLIANCE, including the following: - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 005141684 in Classes 5 and 42, registered on May 25, 2007; - China Trade Mark Registration No. G891655 in Classes 5 and 42, registered on June 16, 2006; and - France Trade Mark Registration No. 3399345 in Classes 5 and 42, registered on December 22, 2005. The disputed domain name was registered on January 13, 2021. According to the screenshots provided by the Complainant, at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to an active website featuring adult content and links associated with the gambling websites. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name is not connected to any active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts that it has prior rights in the MERIEUX ALLIANCE trade marks and that it is a leading player in its fields of business. The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MERIEUX ALLIANCE trade marks, and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not affect the analysis as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks. The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the MERIEUX ALLIANCE mark, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant also asserts that there is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any connection to the MERIEUX ALLIANCE mark in any way, and that there is no plausible good faith reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name, especially after considering the relevant circumstances. The Complainant therefore concludes that the registration and any use of the disputed domain name whatsoever must be in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of the Proceeding In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules: “[…] 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.” In this case, the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Hence, the default language of the proceeding should be Chinese. However, the Complainant filed the Complaint in English, and requested that English be the language of the proceeding, asserting inter alia that: - The Registrar’s website cannot be accessed during the time of preparation of the Complaint, so the Complainant filed the complaint in English, as the English language is most commonly used in international exchanges; - The disputed domain name resolved to a website that displayed its information in Chinese and in English, so the Respondent is likely to be familiar with the English language; and - The Complainant is not familiar with the Chinese language. The Respondent was notified in both Chinese and English of the language of the proceeding and the Complaint and did not comment on the language of the proceeding or submit any response. Considering the circumstances in this case, the Panel has determined that the language of the proceeding shall be English, and the Panel has issued this decision in English. The Panel further finds that such determination would not cause any prejudice to either Party and would ensure the proceeding that takes place with due expedition. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the MERIEUX ALLIANCE trade mark in many territories around the world. Disregarding the “.com” gTLD, the disputed domain name incorporates the MERIEUX ALLIANCE trade mark in its entirety. Thus, the disputed domain name should be regarded as confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MERIEUX ALLIANCE trade mark. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its rights in the MERIEUX ALLIANCE trade mark and in showing that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of producing evidence in support of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant may be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trade mark and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the disputed domain name resolved to a website featuring adult content and links associated with the gambling websites. Thus, the Complainant has established its prima facie case with satisfactory evidence. The Respondent did not file a response and has therefore failed to assert factors or put forth evidence to establish that it enjoys rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is applicable in this case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trade mark 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) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name to prevent the owner of the trade mark 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) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt 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 its website or location. The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances in which bad faith may be found. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from and exploit the trade mark of another party. Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,WIPO Case No. D2004-0230. For the reasons discussed under this and the preceding heading, the Panel believes that the Respondent’s conduct in this case constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. When the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in January 2021, the MERIEUX ALLIANCE trade marks were already widely known and directly associated with the Complainant’s activities. Given the extensive prior use and fame of these marks, in the Panel’s view, the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant’s marks when registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent has provided no evidence to justify his registration of the disputed domain name. Given the foregoing, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the Respondent – at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name – was unaware of the Complainant’s trade mark, or that the Respondent’s adoption of the uncommon and distinctive combination of “Merieux Alliance” was a mere coincidence. Ultimately, the Complainant’s registered trade mark rights in MERIEUX ALLIANCE for its signature products and services predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. A simple online search (e.g., via Baidu) against the term “Merieux Alliance” would have no doubt revealed that it is a world-renowned brand. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Joseph Simone
The Panel is therefore of the view that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark rights and with the intention of taking advantage of the fame and reputation of the Complainant’s trade mark. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to an active website featuring adult content and links associated with the gambling websites, which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Sole Panelist
Date: May 10, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy