SANOFI v. Way Su, et al.
Claim Number: FA1703001720108
Complainant: SANOFI, of Paris, France.
Complainant Representative: Marchais Associes, of Paris, France.
Respondent: Way Su, of Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Respondent Representative: None
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Uniregistry, Corp.
Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Jeffrey M. Samuels, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: March 6, 2017
Commencement: March 6, 2017
Default Date: March 21, 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").
Complainant requests that the domain names be suspended for the life of the registrations.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant Sanofi, a French company, is one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies. It operates in more than 100 countries, employs over 100,000 people and offers a wide range of drug products to treat patients with serious diseases.
Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations around the world that consist of or contain the mark SANOFI.
The disputed domain names, sanofi.lol and sanofi.mom, were registered on May 4, 2016, despite receiving notification that the domain names matched a mark registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse. The domain names resolve to inactive webpages.
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.
1. The Examiner finds that the disputed domain names are, for all intents and purposes, identical to the SANOFI mark. They incorporate the mark in their entirety and the addition of the generic top-level domains does not support a contrary finding. The evidence further supports a determination that Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that the mark is currently in use.
2. The Examiner finds that Complainant has met its burden of establishing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has never been authorized by Complainant to register and/or use the SANOFI mark in any manner. Insofar as the disputed domain names resolve to inactive sites, it may not be held that the Respondent is using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or is making a noncommercial or fair use of the domain names.
3. The Examiner finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The evidence indicates that the domain names were registered for the illegitimate purpose of attracting internet users to visit Respondent’s websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or sponsorship of such sites. Moreover, given the widespread use of the SANOFI mark, it is reasonable to assume that Respondent had actual notice of such mark at the time the disputed domain names were registered. Complainant further contends (and there is no evidence or argument to the contrary) that Respondent proposed to sell the domain names in excess of his out-of-pocket costs.
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:
sanofi.lol
sanofi.mom
Jeffrey M. Samuels, Examiner
Dated: March 22, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page