URS FINAL DETERMINATION

SANOFI v. Lin Yi Yan et al.
Claim Number: FA1608001691629

DOMAIN NAME

<sanofi.store>

PARTIES

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

	Respondent: domain name yiyan lin of shenzhenshi, China

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: DotStore 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.
	David L. Kreider Esq,, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: August 30, 2016
	Commencement: August 30, 2016
	Response Date: August 31, 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").

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 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 July 25, 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.

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, 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

Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations worldwide that consist of or contain the word SANOFI, including International trademark registration No.1091805 and enjoys a widespread reputation. The disputed domain name is identical to the above cited trademark in that it incorporates in its entirety the main and distinctive word “SANOFI”. Respondent has through the registration of confusingly similar disputed domain name created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark.

[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. 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. Respondent's assertion that his use of a particular TLD, e.g., ".store", removes the disputed domain name from any connection with Complainant's registered mark is without merit.

[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 Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used after the trademark SANOFI became well-known. Respondent necessarily had actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark when registering the domain name ; additionally, the disputed domain name was registered for the illegitimate purpose of attracting Internet users to visit Respondent’s webpage, by creating a likelihood of confusion between SANOFI trademarks and the contested domain name which results in misleading diversion; finally, the domain name resolves to an inactive website, which disrupts Complainant’s business. Respondent's assertions that, subsequent to registration, he is not using the disputed domain name to sell merchandise on the Internet and that upon registering the disputed domain name he has the right and entitlement to use it, are likewise without merit.

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.store

David L. Kreider Esq,
Examiner
Dated: August 31, 2016

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page