SANOFI v. ai jia
Claim Number: FA1607001682135
Complainant: SANOFI of Paris, France.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Marchais Associes of Paris, France.
Respondent: ai jia of han zhong shi, sn, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Afilias Limited
Registrars: West263 International 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.
Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas Ms., as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: July 1, 2016
Commencement: July 1, 2016
Default Date: July 18, 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.
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 tardemarK.
In the present case, the international registration No 1091805 attached to the Complaint, verified and validated, is a combined word and device mark. The word element is clearly separated from the device element showing the SANOFI word mark element prominently.
Relying on the prior case FA1604001672049 concerning the domain name <sanofi.xin>, the Panel finds that the Complainant has a valid trademark in the meaning of the URS procedure.
The domain name at issue is composed with the Complainant’s SANOFI trademark, together with the extension “.red”.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SANOFI mark pursuant to URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
URS paragraph 1.2.6.2: Respondent has no legitimate right or interest in the domain name.
Respondent is not licensed and has not been authorized to register or use the domain name. He is not commonly known under the domain name at issue.
URS paragraph 1.2.6.3: the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Given the worldwide reputation of the Complainant’s SANOFI trademark, Respondent could not reasonably ignore the Complainant’s SANOFI trademark when registering the domain name at issue. This is an indication of bad faith.
The Panel finds that holding an inactive domain name can be, under certain circumstances, an indication of bad faith registration and use. Given the worldwide reputation of the Complainant’s SANOFI trademark and the default of the Respondent, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.
For these reasons, the Examiner finds that, Complainant made a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the domain name at issue <sanofi.red> should be suspended.
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.red>
Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas, Examiner
Dated: July 18, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page