URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

SANOFI v. Sebastian Encina
Claim Number: FA1510001642355

DOMAIN NAME

<sanofi-aventis.science>

PARTIES

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

	Respondent: N/A Sebastian Encina of Vina del Mar, Valparaíso, II, Chile

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: dot Science Limited
	Registrars: Alpnames Limited

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.
	Saravanan Dhandapani, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: October 14, 2015
	Commencement: October 15, 2015
	Default Date: October 30, 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

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Complainants: No multiple Complainants are involved in this proceeding. This Complaint and findings relate to the domain name <sanofi-aventis.science>. No domain name is dismissed from this Complaint.
		Multiple Respondents: No multiple Respondents are involved in this proceeding. This Complaint and findings relate to the domain name <sanofi-aventis.science>. No domain name is dismissed from this Complaint.

Findings of Fact: The case of the Complainant is as follows: Complainant is a French company, with consolidated net sales of 33,77 billion Euros in 2014, ranking 4th world's largest multinational pharmaceutical company by prescription sales. SANOFI engages in R&D, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products for sale, principally in the prescription market, but the firm also develops over-the-counter medication. Complainant is a major player on the worldwide pharmaceutical market settled in more than 100 countries on all 5 continents, employing 110,000 people and offering a wide range of patented prescription drugs to treat patients with serious diseases in 7 major therapeutic areas, namely cardiovascular, thrombosis, metabolic disorders, oncology, central nervous system, internal medicine and vaccines. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 25, 2015. Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations worldwide that consist of the mark SANOFI-AVENTIS, including International trademark registration No. 839358 and enjoys a widespread reputation in the world. The disputed domain name is identical to the above cited trademark consisting in whole of the words “SANOFIAVENTIS”. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. It has never been authorized by the Complainant to register or use any domain name incorporating “SANOFI” trademark. Respondent has through the registration of confusingly similar disputed domain name created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the likelihood of confusion is ascertained by the reputation of Complainant’s trade name, trademarks, domain names (e.g. <sanofi-aventis.com>) and goodwill, regardless of the descriptive extension <science>, especially in the field on medicine. Insofar as the contested domain name resolves to an inactive page, Respondent has evidenced no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as he is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name nor is he using the litigious domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith: first of all, given the reputation of the “SANOFIAVENTIS” mark, the Respondent is likely to have -had notice of the existence of Complainant’s marks when registering the domain name. Respondent acted with opportunistic bad faith when registering the domain name in order to make an illegitimate use of it. In cases in which the well-known status of a complainant’s trademarks is established, numerous panel decisions have constantly acknowledged that this consideration is, in itself, indicative of bad faith registration and use; - secondly, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website; it has been established in many UDRP cases that the international reputation of a Complainant’s trademarks has supported findings that passive holding constitutes a use in bad faith; - thirdly, on August 3rd 2015, Complainant sent to Registrant a cease and desist letter explaining that the use of the contested domain name breached SANOFI’S prior rights over its trademarks. The Respondent's failure to express any denial or explanation despite the opportunity offered to him reinforces the inference of bad faith registration and bad faith use.

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for 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 Complainant has proved by documentary evidences that they are the registered owner of trademark “SANOFI-AVENTIS” engaging in R&D, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products for sale. As noted, the disputed domain name <sanofi-aventis.science> composes “sanofi-aventis” and “.science”. The “sanofi-aventis” in disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s trademark “SANOFI-AVENTIS”. The “.science” in disputed domain name is a generic code top-level domain name (gTLD) suffix. It is non-distinctive and is incapable of differentiating the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademark. Based on the “SANOFI-AVENTIS” being a registered trademark of the Complainant, the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.1(i) covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant owns trademark “SANOFI-AVENTIS” since October 01, 2004 under various classifications including scientific technology services and settled in pharmaceutical market in more than 100 countries. The Complainant’s adoption and first use of the registered trademark is for more than a decade ago. In such case, the burden lies on the Respondent to prove that he/she has legitimate rights and/or interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is in default and has not filed any response. Although, the Complainant is not entitled to relief simply by default of the Respondent to submit a Response, the Examiner can however and does draw evidentiary inferences from the failure of the Respondent to respond. In view of the above, the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights and legitimate interest. Based on the record, the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Hence, the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.2 covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint and that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

[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

It is the specific case of the Complainant that the Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any manner and never authorized the Respondent to register or use any domain name incorporating “SANOFI-AVENTIS”; the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page; the Respondent is likely to have had notice of the Complainant’s “SANOFI-AVENTIS”; and in spite of Complainant’s a cease and desist letter the Respondent failed to express any denial or explanation. Furthermore, the Respondent has failed to respond in spite of the notice of complaint and notice of default under this URS determination process. It is well established that the registration and use of the disputed domain name must involve malafides where the registration and use of it was continues to be made in full knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights in the “SANOFI-AVENTIS” trademark, trade name, domain names i.e., <sanofi-aventies.com>; and in circumstances where the registrant did not seek permission from the Complainant, as the owner of trademark, for such registration and use. Thus the Panel Examiner comes to irresistible determination that (i) the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s “SANOFI-AVENTIS” trademark; (ii) the Respondent’s name does not correspond to the disputed domain name; (iii) the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed the domain name; (iv) there is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant’s mark. Hence, it is lawful to conclude that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Thus the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.3 (a) and (d) covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

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.

The Examiner finds as follows:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

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-aventis.science

Saravanan Dhandapani
Examiner
Dated: November 2, 2015

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page