URS FINAL DETERMINATION


SANOFI v. 苏威 et al.
Claim Number: FA1604001672049


DOMAIN NAME

<sanofi.xin>


PARTIES


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

   Respondent: 威 苏 of 武汉, China
  
Respondent Representative: 威 苏 of 武汉, China

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Elegant Leader Limited
   Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)

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: April 26, 2016
   Commencement: April 26, 2016
   Response Date: May 3, 2016
   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 Respondent 


Complainant relies on its international trademark registration No. 1091805 for the composite word and device mark SANOFI, with a registration date of August 18, 2011. URS 1.2.6.1 requires Complainant to establish that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration that is in current use. In seeking to rely on its registration for the word and device mark SANOFI, Complainant has not satisfied the requirements of 1.2.6.1.


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

Determined: Finding for Respondent 


As Complainant has not satisfied the first limb of the URS Procedure, it is not necessary to make a determination under URS 1.2.6.2.


[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 Respondent 


As Complainant has not satisfied the first limb of the URS Procedure, it is not necessary to make a determination under URS 1.2.6.3.


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:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has NOT 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 returned to the control of Respondent:

  1. sanofi.xin

 


Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes
Examiner
Dated: May 6, 2016

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page