Sanofi v 曹伟 (Wei Cao)

WIPO Case No. D2024-3700

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Sanofi v. 曹伟 (Wei Cao)

Case No. D2024-3700

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is 曹伟 (Wei Cao), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sanofi.tech> is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology

Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 11, 2024. On September 12, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 13, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 13, 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 in English on September 17, 2024.

On September 13, 2024, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On September 18, 2024, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission.

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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 23, 2024. In accordance

page 2

with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 13, 2024. The Respondent did not

submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 17, 2024.

The Center appointed James Wang as the sole panelist in this matter on October 23, 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, France.

The Complainant is the 4th largest multinational pharmaceutical company in terms of prescription sales. It engages in research and development, manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products for sale, principally in the prescription market, and also develops over-the-counter medication.

The Complainant is present in more than 100 countries on all five continents and employing 100,000 people.

The Complainant is the owner of numerous SANOFI trademarks registered in various jurisdictions, including but not limited to the following:

- International trademark number 591490 SANOFI, registered on September 25, 1992, designating China,

among others;

- No. 96655339 French trademark SANOFI, registered on December 11, 1996; and

- No. 000596023 European Union trademark SANOFI, registered on February 1, 1999.

The Complainant is also the owner of a number of domain names comprising SANOFI, including
<sanofi.com> registered on October 13, 1995.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 18, 2024. It resolves to a parking page offering the disputed domain name for sale.

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 name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.

The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be

English.

The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).

Considering the Center has already sent Chinese-English dual language case-related communications to the
Parties, including communications regarding the language of the proceeding, and thereby given the
Respondent an opportunity to comment on or to oppose the Complainant’s request and arguments, and
considering the Respondent’s default and lack of reaction after having been given a fair chance to comment
or oppose, together with the fact that the disputed domain name consists of only Latin letters instead of
Chinese characters, the Panel finds it would not be unfair to proceed in English as requested by the
Complainant.

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.

6.2. Substantive Elements

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

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

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 name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registrant of SANOFI trademark registrations in
different jurisdictions. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark for the purposes of the
Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark SANOFI is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

page 4

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

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

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the present case, while the Respondent is a Chinese individual, SANOFI is a coined mark and has no inherent meaning in English or Chinese Pinyin.

The Complainant has provided evidence that the Complainant’s SANOFI trademark has been registered in different jurisdictions and is well known. A simple online search could reveal that the SANOFI trademark is in wide use by the Complainant.

Given the above, it would be inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the SANOFI trademark at the time of the registration. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page offering the disputed domain name for sale, which indicates that the Respondent has an intent to profit in some fashion from the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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

page 5

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 name <sanofi.tech> be transferred to the Complainant.

/James Wang/ James Wang Sole Panelist Date: November 6, 2024