About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Sanofi, Sanofi Biotechnology v. Quan Zhong Jun (权中俊)

Case No. D2020-0812

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Sanofi, France, and Sanofi Biotechnology, France (collectively, the “Complainant”), represented by Selarl Marchais & Associés, France.

The Respondent is Quan Zhong Jun (权中俊), China.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <dpixent.com>, <dupient.com> and <upixent.com> are registered with DNSPod, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 3, 2020. On April 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 16, 2020, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 16, 2020 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 April 16, 2020.

On April 16, 2020, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed the request that English be the language of the proceeding on April 16, 2020. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

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 April 23, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 13, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 14, 2020.

The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on May 26, 2020. 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 Sanofi, headquartered in France, ranks the fourth largest multinational pharmaceutical company in the world. The Complainant Sanofi Biotechnology, a subsidiary of Sanofi, owns a number of trademark registrations over DUPIXENT, including the international trademark registration number 1278059 registered October 28, 2015, covering China and many other countries or regions.

The disputed domain names <dpixent.com>, <dupient.com> and <upixent.com> were registered by the Respondent on February 13, 2020. According to the Complaint, the disputed domain names resolve to websites displaying pay-per-click (“PPC”) links relating to “Dupixent for Eczema, Dupixent Cost, Dupixent Coupon, Dupixent Discount Card”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names <dpixent.com>, <dupient.com> and <upixent.com> are confusingly similar to its registered trademark DUPIXENT.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names <dpixent.com>, <dupient.com> and <upixent.com>.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names <dpixent.com>, <dupient.com> and <upixent.com> were registered and are being used in bad faith.

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain names <dpixent.com>, <dupient.com> and <upixent.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Language of the Proceeding

According to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.

When determining the language of the proceeding, the paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules should also be taken into account to balance the fairness and equal treatment to the parties and the expedition for domain name dispute resolution. (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui’erpu (HK) electrical applicance co. ltd., WIPO Case No. D2008-0293). The language finally decided by the panel for the proceeding should be non-prejudicial to either party to present the case. (Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004) (See section 4.5 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)).

The Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names are in Chinese. The Complainant requests the language of the proceeding be English. The Respondent does not make any submission in response to the Complainant’s request.

The Panel notes that the websites to which the disputed domain names <dpixent.com>, <dupient.com> and <upixent.com> resolve are all in English, which shows that the Respondent has sufficient capacity to use English as the working language. In addition, the disputed domain names are registered in Latin characters rather than Chinese script.

The Panel finds that making English as the language of the proceeding will not affect the Respondent’s ability to present its case and can effectively avoid the considerable delays and expenses if requiring the Complaint be translated into Chinese.

In consideration of the above circumstances and in the interest of fairness to both Parties, the Panel decides, under paragraph 11 of the Rules, that English shall be the language of the proceeding in this case.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant provides the trademark registration certificates issued by the competent authorities and proves its trademark rights over DUPIXENT in China and many other countries or regions.

The Panel notes that apart from the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.com”, the disputed domain names consist of “dpixent", “dupient” and “upixent” respectively. If compared with the Complainant’s registered mark DUPIXENT, the character sets of all the disputed domain names are visually and phonically similar to the mark. Given that the Complainant’s DUPIXENT mark is highly distinctive, the disputed domain names each of which contains only one letter different from the mark are very likely a series of typosquatting against the mark.

The Panel, therefore, finds that the disputed domain names <dpixent.com>, <dupient.com> and <upixent.com> are confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant successfully proves the first element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names <dpixent.com>, <dupient.com> and <upixent.com> and, as stated above, the Respondent does not provide any information to the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests he/she may have in the disputed domain name.

It is apparent from the Complaint that there was no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant or its business. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which can be taken to demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. However, there is no evidence before the Panel that any of the situations described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply here. To the contrary, the lack of a Response leads the Panel to draw a negative inference.

Therefore, and also in light of the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names <dpixent.com>, <dupient.com> and <upixent.com>. Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the second element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that long before the Respondent registered the disputed domain names <dpixent.com>, <dupient.com> and <upixent.com> the Complainant has registered and used the mark DUPIXENT on pharmaceutical products for atopic dermatitis (particularly Eczema) in China where the Respondent resides. Given that the Complainant’s distinctive mark DUPIXENT has no particular meaning and has acquired worldwide reputation on pharmaceutical products, there is no likelihood that the Respondent registered the confusingly similar disputed domain names coincidentally.

According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain names resolve to websites all of which contain PPC links relating to “Dupixent for Eczema, Dupixent Cost, Dupixent Coupon, Dupixent Discount Card”. In the absence of any rebuttal by the Respondent, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name sufficiently proves that the Respondent knows not only the Complainant’s mark DUPIXENT but the anti-eczema drugs on which the DUPIXENT mark has been consistently used. The Respondent’s registration of the multiple domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and use of the disputed domain names in connection with websites containing fake or misleading information about the Complainant’s mark, or use for PPC links, indicate that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering the domain names in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark in the corresponding domain names, which constitutes the evidence of bad faith under the paragraph 4(b)(ii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

In conclusion, the Complainant successfully proves the third element required by paragraph 4(a) 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 <dpixent.com>, <dupient.com> and <upixent.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Date: June 5, 2020

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/