Sanofi v Silicon Media

WIPO Case No. D2024-2130

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Sanofi v. Silicon Media

Case No. D2024-2130

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Silicon Media, India, internally represented.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sanofienterprisesinc.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with

NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 24, 2024. On connection with the Domain Name. On May 24, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 27, 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 May 30, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 29, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 18, 2024. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on May 30, 2024, and June 5, 2024, regarding a possible settlement to cancel the Domain Name that did not come to fruition. Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Rules, on August 23, 2024, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed with the panel appointment process.

page 2

The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on September 3, 2024. 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 a French multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in Paris. The billion in 2022.
Complainant engages in research and development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical
products for sale, principally in the prescription market, but also develops over-the-counter medication. The

Complainant and its predecessors in title have used Sanofi as a name and brand for over 30 years. The

The Complainant and its predecessors in title have held trademark registrations for SANOFI (the “SANOFI
Mark”) since at least 1988. Its trademark registrations for the SANOFI Mark cover a range of pharmaceutical
products across jurisdictions, including United States of America registration number 4,178,199, registered

July 24, 2012.

The Domain Name was registered on May 10, 2024, and does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a cancellation of the Domain Name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that;

a) It is the owner of the SANOFI Mark, having registered the SANOFI Mark in the United States of

America as well as numerous other jurisdictions. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SANOFI

Mark as it reproduces the SANOFI Mark in its entirety and adds the generic terms “enterprisesinc”.

b) There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name.

The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization for the Respondent to use the SANOFI Mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the SANOFI Mark, nor does it use the Domain Name for a bona fide purpose or legitimate noncommercial purpose. Indeed, the Domain Name does not resolve to an active webpage at all.

c) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. There is no plausible circumstance

under which the Respondent could legitimately use the Domain Name, which combines the SANOFI Mark
and generic terms “enterprisesinc”, other than in bad faith. Given the reputation of the highly distinctive
SANOFI Mark, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s mark at the time of registration.
In such circumstances, the Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name amounts to use of the
Domain Name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

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 Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms here, “enterprisesinc”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

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 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 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 Domain Name. The Respondent 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 Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that:

- before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, nor has it made
demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 2.2.

- the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.3.

- the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.4.

page 4

- the record contains no other factors demonstrating rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in

the Domain Name.

There is no evidence of any demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name at all or any other evidence that would give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

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 Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that there is no evidence of any use or demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the Domain Name, wholly incorporating the well-known SANOFI Mark, and the absence of any explanation of why the Domain Name was registered, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

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 Domain Name <sanofienterprisesinc.com> be cancelled.

/Nicholas Smith/
Nicholas Smith
Sole Panelist
Date: September 9, 2024