SANOFI v. Yan Chuan
Claim Number: FA1605001673225
Complainant: SANOFI of PARIS, France.
Complainant Representative: Marchais Associes of Paris, France.
Respondent: Yan Yu Chuan of Beijing, Beijing, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: None.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotOnline Inc.; DotPress Inc.; Top Level Design, LLC; Uniregistry, Corp.
Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)
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.
David L. Kreider, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: May 4, 2016
Commencement: May 5, 2016
Default Date: May 20, 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") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
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.
Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations worldwide that consist of or contain the mark SANOFI, including International trademark registration No.1091805 and enjoys a widespread reputation in the world, including China.
The Respondent received notice of these administrative proceedings in English and Chinese, yet failed to submit a response timely, or at all.
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.
The evidence shows, and this Examiner finds, that Respondent registered the disputed domain names on April 13 and 14, 2016, despite having receiving notification that the domain names matched Complainant’s “SANOFI” mark registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse. The Respondent is required to have clicked on the Registrar notice Acknowledge Claim when presented with the Trademark Claims Notice to complete registration of the names. Respondent, at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names, therefore knew of the existence of Complainant’s trademark.
The disputed domain names are identical to the above-cited trademark consisting in whole of the word “SANOFI”. 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 names incorporating “SANOFI” trademark. Respondent has through the registration of confusingly similar disputed domain names 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.com>) and goodwill, regardless of the descriptive extensions <press, click, help, online, pics, photo, gift, link, design, wiki>.
Insofar as the contested domain names resolve to inactive webpages, Respondent has evidenced no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names as he is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names, nor is he using the litigious domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith: first of all, given that the disputed domain names were registered and used after the trademark SANOFI became well-known, Respondent necessarily had actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark when registering the domain names; secondly, the disputed domain names were registered for the illegitimate purpose of attracting Internet users to visit Respondent’s websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion between SANOFI trademarks and the contested domain names; thirdly, the domain names resolve to inactive websites which disrupt Complainant’s business.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
David L. Kreider Esq., Examiner
Dated: May 21, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page