URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

SANOFI v. ZhangXin
Claim Number: FA1701001710313

DOMAIN NAME

<sanofi.space>

PARTIES

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

	Respondent: ZhangXin ZhangXin ZhangXin of Shen Yang Shi, Liao Ning, II, CN

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: DotSpace Inc.
	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.
	Richard W. Hill, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: January 3, 2017
	Commencement: January 3, 2017
	Default Date: January 18, 2017
	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: Complainant states that, with consolidated net sales of 39.05 billion Euros in 2015, it is a French company, 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 November 20, 2016 despite receiving notification that the domain name matched a 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 name. Respondent, at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, therefore knew the existence of Complainant’s trademark. 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.

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 disputed domain name is identical to the above cited trademark consisting of the main and distinctive word “SANOFI”.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

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. Insofar as the contested domain name resolves to an inactive webpage, 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.

[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

The disputed domain name is not being used. According to paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition, “[p]anels have found that the apparent lack of so-called active use (e.g., to resolve to a website) of the domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder (passive holding), does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith. The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith. Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include the complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the complaint having been filed, and the registrant’s concealment of its identity. Panels may draw inferences about whether the domain name was used in bad faith given the circumstances surrounding registration, and vice versa.” In the present case, Complainant's mark is very well known and it is hard to see how the disputed domain name could be used in' good faith. There has been no response to the Complaint. Thus the Examiner finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain name is not being actively used

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.space

Richard W. Hill
Examiner
Dated: January 18, 2017

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page