SANOFI v. REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA1911001873379
Complainant: SANOFI of Paris, France.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Marchais Associes of Paris, France.
Respondent: Data Protected Limited of HONGKONG, International, HK.
Respondent Representative: none
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Minds + Machines Group Limited
Registrars: ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED
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.
James Bridgeman, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 28, 2019
Commencement: December 3, 2019
Default Date: December 18, 2019
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.
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.
Complainant has merely made conclusory statements repeating the tests that must be met. Complainant’s submission is far too brief and merely repeats the tests that Complainant must meet as follows:
“Grounds on which Complainant is entitled to relief (URS Proc. 1.2.6)
1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.1]:
for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use
2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.2]
3. [if URS] The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as:
[if .usRS] The domain name(s) was/were registered or are being used in bad faith [.usRS 1.2.6.3] such as:
By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users
to Registrant’s web site or other online 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.”
There is no attempt to produce any explanation or argument. The URS is a summary procedure and while detailed Complaints are not required and while Complainant has adduced documents in support of the Complaint, there has been no attempt to explain them or put them into context. Complainant has not met the standard of clear and convincing evidence.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
James Bridgeman SC
Examiner
Dated: December 19, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page