Sanofi v. He Tao et al.

URS FINAL DETERMINATION

Sanofi v. He Tao et al.
Claim Number: FA1508001631734

DOMAIN NAME

<sanofi.space>

PARTIES

	Complainant: Sanofi of Paris, France
	Complainant Representative: Marchais Associes Philippe MARTINI-BERTHON of Paris, France

	Respondent: Tao He of 济南, China
	Respondent Representative: Tao He of 济南, China

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: DotSpace Inc.
	Registrars: CHENGDU WEST DIMENSION DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.

EXAMINER

	The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
	Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: August 4, 2015
	Commencement: August 4, 2015
	Response Date: August 18, 2015
	Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION

Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The registered domain name is identical to Complainant's well-known SANOFI trademark.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Respondent has failed to demonstrate any legitimate rights or interests in the domain name. The domain name has been resolved to a parking page with sponsored links, and which offers the domain name for sale. Respondent's assertion that the domain name is intended to represent the Japanese name "SANO" together with the word "HIFI" is not borne out by any evidence. There is no evidence at all of any such use.

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or 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 documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site 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 Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

This is a clear-cut case of registration and use in bad faith. The domain name is identical to Complainant's trademark. Complainant's mark was registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse. Respondent must therefore have been on notice of Complainant's rights in its mark when Respondent registered the domain name. Furthermore, the domain name has been used in respect of a parking site to generate revenue for Respondent through causing confusion amongst Internet users, and it has been offered for sale via Respondent's website.

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

Respondent makes various irrelevant assertions regarding purported third party proceedings in China against Complainant. There is simply no evidence to support any findings against Complainant herein.

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

sanofi.space

Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes
Examiner
Dated: August 18, 2015

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page