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


Sanofi v. Yansheng zhang, GNAME.COM PTE. LTD

Case No. D2021-1751

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Sanofi, France, represented by Selarl Marchais De Candé, France.

The Respondent is Yansheng zhang, GNAME.COM PTE. LTD, Singapore.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sanofiguvende.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 3, 2021. On June 3, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 4, 2021, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 7, 2021 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 June 9, 2021.

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 June 10, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 30, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 1, 2021.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 2021. 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 the owner of the trade mark SANOFI registered, inter alia, as French trade mark number 1482708, registered on August 11, 1988 for pharmaceuticals. The Complainant owns <sanofi.com>.

The Domain Name was registered on April 29, 2021, and has been used for third party commercial services including gambling and pornography.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark SANOFI registered, inter alia, as French trade mark number 1482708, registered on August 11, 1988 for pharmaceuticals. The Complainant owns <sanofi.com>.

The Domain Name, registered on April 29, 2021, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SANOFI mark adding only the word “guvende” which means safe in the Turkish language and the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” which does not prevent such confusing similarity.

The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and has not been authorised by the Complainant.

The Domain Name has been attached to a site offering third party commercial services including gambling and pornography. This cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial, legitimate or fair use. It is registration and use in opportunistic bad faith to disrupt the Complainant’s business and to attract and mislead Internet users for commercial gain.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant’s SANOFI mark (registered as French trade mark number 1482708, registered on August 11, 1988 for pharmaceuticals), the Turkish word “guvende” which means safe in the Turkish language and the gTLD “.com”.

The addition of the Turkish dictionary word “guvende” and the gTLD “.com” to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. The use made by the Respondent of the Domain Name is commercial and so cannot be legitimate noncommercial fair use.

The web site attached to the Domain Name offers gaming and pornography services. Use of a Domain Name containing a well-known third party trade mark for such services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or given any reason why it should be allowed to use the Complainant’s well known trade mark with a reputation for pharmaceuticals in the Domain Name to offer gambling and pornography services.

Previous Panels have held that use of a well known trade mark in a domain name to offer gambling and/or pornography services is both registration and use in bad faith. It seems clear the Respondent is diverting Internet users for commercial gain and thereby disrupting the business of the Complainant in opposition to the latter’s interests.

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith.

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, <sanofiguvende.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: July 14, 2021