Sanofi Pasteur v Domain Admin

WIPO Case No. D2024-4844

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Sanofi Pasteur v. Domain Admin

Case No. D2024-4844

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Sanofi Pasteur, France, represented by Selarl Marchais & Associés, France.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <vaxrabeo.com> and <vaxrabia.com> are registered with Dynadot Inc

(the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 23,

2024. On November 25, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 26, 2024, the Registrar
transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for
the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and
contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on
November 29, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting
the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the

Complaint on December 10, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name

Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution

Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

(the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 26, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 27, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on January 8, 2025. The Panel finds
that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of

Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is part of the French multinational pharmaceutical company Sanofi, which has a presence in over 100 countries, employing 100,000 people (hereinafter, the Complainant and Sanofi will be collectively

referred to as the “Complainant”). The Complainant is the fourth largest multinational pharmaceutical

company by prescription sales, and has spent more than EUR 6.7 billion in research and development
purposes translating into a wide range of prescription drugs in 7 major therapeutic areas. The Complainant
produces more than 1 billion vaccine doses a year, making possible the immunization of more than 500

million people around the world.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations including:

Registration Date of Priority

Trademark Jurisdiction Class

No.	Registration	Date
February 18.

VAXRABEO 018763277 European Union - Class 5.

2023.

August 27, July 22,

VAXRABEO 7489011 United States Class 5.

2024.   2022.

February 23.

VAXRABIA 018763283 European Union - Class 5.

2023.

August 27, July 22,

VAXRABIA 7489015 United States Class 5.

2024.   2022.

The Complainant owns the domain name <sanofi.com>, which resolves to the Complainant’s main website.
The Complainant’s domain name <sanofi.com> was registered on October 13, 1995.

The disputed domain names <vaxrabeo.com> and <vaxrabia.com> were registered on May 16, 2024. At the time of writing this decision, the disputed domains name resolve to a default parking website advertising the

sale of the disputed domain names with their price – both of the disputed domain names are listed for

USD 2,850.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names.

Notably, the Complainant contends the following:

I. Identical or Confusingly Similar

That the Complainant’s VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademark registrations predate the registration of the

disputed domain names, and that the Respondent cannot simply ignore the Complainant whose trademarks
are used worldwide.

page 3

That the disputed domain names reproduce the Complainant’s VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademarks,

which do not bear any particular meaning, and therefore are highly distinctive.

That the Complainant is a multinational company in the pharmaceutical field, using for more than 40 years the trademark and tradename SANOFI all over the world.

That the reproduction of the Complainant’s VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademarks are the unique and
dominant part of the disputed domain names, which are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademarks, regardless of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension

“.com”, because the disputed domain names comprise an exact reproduction of said trademarks.

That it has been established in UDRP precedents that when a disputed domain name wholly incorporates a

trademark in its entirety, “it is confusingly similar to that trademark despite the addition of a word or in this

case, of a descriptive term” (and cites Oki Data Americas Inc v. ASD Inc, WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, and

Sanofi v. vddfwees qqweadsgg, WIPO Case No. D2013-1740).

That the likelihood of confusion is ascertained by the reputation of the Complainant’s trade name,

trademarks, domain names and goodwill, and that in this regard previous panels have considered the

Complainant’s SANOFI trademarks as well known in many jurisdictions (and cites Sanofi v. 诉 孙启 [Sun Qi

Feng] 案件编号, WIPO Case No. D2021-2066; Sanofi v. Domain Admin, Whoisprotection.cc / Jose Flora,

Waeco mart ltd, WIPO Case No. D2021-1857; Sanofi v. Aamir Hitawala, WIPO Case No. D2021-1781;
Sanofi v. Yansheng zhang, GNAME.COM PTE.LTD, WIPO Case No. D2021-1751; Sanofi v. Contact

Privacy Inc. Customer 0161263426 / Mike Willis, Sanofi Pasteur, WIPO Case No. D2021-1320; Sanofi v. li

yue rong [李玥蓉], WIPO Case No. D2021-0649; Sanofi v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Rate

funds, [Name Redacted], WIPO Case No. D2021-0318; Sanofi v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer
1246827457, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1246827457 / Gopal Yadav, Onineaudiotraining, WIPO Case
No. D2020-0832; Sanofi v. HUANG GUANGJIN aka HUANGGUANGJIN, WIPO Case No. D2020-0814;

Sanofi v. Liu Huaxiang（刘华祥）, WIPO Case No. D2020-0746; Sanofi v. wingsknow, WIPO Case No. D2020-0642; Sanofi v. Liu Huaxiang（刘华祥）, WIPO Case No. D2020-0617; Sanofi v. Li Qiong Shi,

WIPO Case No. D2020-0473; Sanofi v. Privacy Inc. Customer 1246084445 / Thu Ha Bui, WIPO Case

No. D2020-0441 and Sanofi v. Svetlana Guseva, WIPO Case No. D2019-2815)

II. Rights or Legitimate Interests

That the Respondent does not have any legitimate interest in using the disputed domain names since the

name of the Respondent has no resemblance with the words “vaxrabeo” and “vaxrabia”, and stresses that

the fact that both words have no particular meaning makes them highly distinctive.

That the Respondent has neither a prior right nor a legitimate interest to justify the use of the well-known trademarks of the Complainant.

That the Complainant has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register any domain name including its VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademarks. That, consequently, there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent.

That the Respondent used a privacy service offered by a registrar to keep its identity secret.

That the Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of

goods or services to confer a right or legitimate interest under the Policy’s paragraph 4 (c)(1) since the

disputed domain names are being used to resolve to a parking website designed to sell the disputed domain

names to the highest bidder, unfairly attracting the Complainant’s consumers to it.

That, given the Respondent’s acts, it is obvious that the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to

obtain commercial gain by misleading Internet users.

page 4

That previous Panels have held that the use of a third party’s trademark to lead Internet users to a parking

F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.

website does not correspond to a bona fide non-commercial use (and cites it can be inferred that the Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.

III. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

That previous Panels have found opportunistic bad faith in cases in which the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a Complainant’s well-known trademarks (and cites Sanofi v. Cai Rui Qiao, WIPO

Case No. D2017-1765; Sanofi v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Jim Moretta, WIPO
Case No. D2016-0096; Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Min Zhi, WIPO Case
No. D2013-0020; Christian Louboutin v. no, WIPO Case No. D2013-0538; MasterCard International
Incorporated v. North Tustin Dental Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-1412, and Sanofi v. Bo Li, WIPO
Case No. D2013-1971).

That the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith because the choice of incorporating the VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademarks therein cannot be the result of a coincidence.

That the Respondent does not have any legitimate interest in using the disputed domain names because its

name does not bear any resemblance to the words “vaxrabeo” and “vaxrabia”, which have no particular

meaning and therefore are highly distinctive, which should be deemed sufficient to characterize bad faith

registration.

That the Respondent does not have a prior right nor a legitimate interest to justify the registration and use of

the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain names, which induces bad faith.

That, given the famous and distinctive nature of the Complainant’s VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademarks,

the Respondent likely knew about the existence of the Complainant and its trademarks when registering the
disputed domain names, and that this behavior suggests that the Respondent acted in opportunistic bad

faith.

That the disputed domain names were clearly registered with the purpose of creating a likelihood of

confusion (or an impression of it) with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names.

That previous Panels have held that “knowledge of the complainant’s intellectual property rights, including

trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name is highly indicative of bad faith

registration” and that previous Panels have also recognized the reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks

(and cites Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Vyacheslav Nechaev, WIPO Case

No. D2012-0384).

That it is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names unaware of the

Complainant’s rights and reputation, considering the risk of deception and confusion that would inevitably

arise from the registration of the disputed domain names by misleading Internet users searching for the

Complainant.

That, given the distinctive nature of the Complainant’s VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademarks, the

Respondent likely knew about the Complainant’s trademarks, which constitutes opportunistic bad faith.

That the disputed domain names resolved to parking websites, and were registered for the purpose of

attracting the Complainant’s clients as it is clearly revealed in said websites that the Respondent is selling

the disputed domain names to their highest bidders, diverting the Complainant’s clients.

page 5

That the Respondent is trying to ride off the Complainant’s worldwide reputation, and that this practice has

been recognized as bad faith by previous Panels (and cites Classmates Online, Inc v. Mary-Lamb, WIPO
Case No. D2009-0715).

That the content of the parking websites provides income to the Respondent depending on the number of hits generated on a pay-per-click basis, and that previous Panels have found that a domain name which reproduces a well-known trademark and leads to a parking site amounts to bad faith use (and cites Sanofiaventis and Aventis Pharma SA v. Advent Innovations, WIPO Case No. D2005-0377).

That previous Panels have found bad faith in similar cases, holding that parking websites fall under the

Policy’s paragraph 4 (b) (iv) (and cites Parrot S.A. v. Whois Service, Belize Domain WHOIS Service, WIPO

Case No. D2007-0779; and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Bargin Register, Inc. – Client Services, WIPO

Case No. D2012-0474).

That the Complainant is often the victim of unfair commercial behaviors as found by previous Panels (and cites Sanofi v. Michael Tycoon [c/o Rebel.com Privacy Service], WIPO Case No. D2012-0497; Sanofi v. Vitalik Tkachok, WIPO Case No. D2011-1818; Sanofi v. Malevitch Viatcheslav, WIPO Case

No. D2011-1815; Sanofi-Aventis v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Treasure Entreprise Ltd, WIPO Case
No. D2009-1634; Sanofi-Aventis v. Transure Enterprise Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2010-0964;

Sanofiaventis v. Transure Entreprise Ltd. Host Master, WIPO Case No. D2008-1636; Sanofi-aventis

and

Aventis Inc v. Andrew Miller, WIPO Case No. D2008-1061; and Sanofi-Aventis v. Contact Privacy Inc

Customer 0132380420 / ICS INC, WIPO Case No. D2010-0367).

That the lack of use of the disputed domain names that are particularly close to those used by the

Complainant may cause irreparable damage to the Complainant’s goodwill because Internet users could be

misled to believe that the Complainant does not have presence on the Internet or that it is out of business
(and cites M. Antonino Amaddeo (Reminiscence Diffusion Internationale) v. Gas Bijoux SAS / GAS Olivier,

WIPO Case No. D2012-1831).

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets out the three requirements that the Complainants must prove in order to successfully request remedies:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark to which
the Complainants have rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in connection to the disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Given the Respondent’s default and therefore, failure to specifically address the case merits as they relate to

the three UDRP elements, the Panel may decide this proceeding based on the Complainant’s undisputed

factual allegations under paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules (see Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC
v. NOLDC, Inc., Alternative Identity, Inc., and Kentech, WIPO Case No.D2006-0292; Encyclopaedia

Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk, WIPO Case No. D2002-0487; see also WIPO

Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”),

section 4.3).

page 6

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between

the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown its rights in respect of the VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.2.1 and 1.4.

The disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant’s VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademarks

because the disputed domain names reproduce entirely both distinctive terms, without the addition of

another term or any other modification of the Complainant’s VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademarks

whatsoever.

The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain names constitutes a technical requirement of the

Domain Name System (“DNS”). Thus, it has no legal significance in assessing identity or confusing similarity

CARACOLITO S SAS v. Nelson Brown, OXM.COD2020-0268

in the present case (see , WIPO Case No. ; and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.)

SAP SE v. Mohammed Aziz Sheikh, Sapteq Global Consulting Services, WIPO Case No. D2015-0565; and

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult

task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the

respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with
relevant evidence demonstrating rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of
proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant
evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent, by

failing to specifically address the Complainant’s contentions, has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie

showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in

the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Panel notes that the disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant’s distinctive trademarks,

thus carrying a high risk of implied affiliation, and currently resolving to parking websites with a listed price
relating to the auction of the disputed domain names, which clearly does not reflect any noncommercial use.

Hence, no rights or legitimate interests can be found in favor of the Respondent.

Therefore, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

page 7

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

The Complainant has ascertained its rights over its VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademarks. The Complainant has not proven that said trademarks are well-known. The dates of registration of the

Complainant’s trademarks significantly precede the date of registration of the disputed domain names. In the

present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant’s

VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademarks for purposes of the Policy, thus engaging in a cybersquatting conduct. The fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names, which are identical to the

Complainant’s VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademarks, and that the disputed domain names are currently

resolving to parking websites, shows that the Respondent has targeted the Complainant and its trademarks,

which constitutes opportunistic bad faith (see section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also L’Oréal v.

Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0149511181 / Jerry Peter, WIPO Case No. D2018-1937; Gilead Sciences Ireland UC / Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Domain Maybe For Sale c/o Dynadot, WIPO Case No. D2019-0980; Dream Marriage Group, Inc. v. Romantic Lines LP, Vadim Parhomchuk, WIPO Case No. D2020-1344; and

Valentino S.p.A. v. Qiu Yufeng, Li Lianye, WIPO Case No. D2016-1747).

Moreover, the disputed domain names resolve to parking websites. Therefore, this Panel considers that the Respondent is trying to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant and its VAXRABEO and VAXRABIA trademarks by misleading Internet users, for commercial gain, to the website to which the

disputed domain names resolve, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of said websites, which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy

(see section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel
orders that the disputed domain names <vaxrabeo.com> and <vaxrabia.com> be transferred to the

Complainant.

/Kiyoshi Tsuru/

Kiyoshi Tsuru

Sole Panelist
Date: January 22, 2025