À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Sanofi v. Ojet Ohbrain

Case No. D2016-1053

1. The Parties

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

Respondent is Ojet Ohbrain of California, United States of America ("United States").

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sanoif.com> is registered with Cronon AG Berlin, Niederlassung Regensburg (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 26, 2016. On May 26, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 27, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details, and confirming that German is the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name. In response to an email communication from the Center to the Parties of May 30, 2016, Complainant requested that English be the language of the administrative proceeding. Respondent did not make any submission in this regard.

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 Respondent of the Complaint in English and German, and the proceedings commenced on June 6, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 26, 2016. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on June 27, 2016.

The Center appointed Peter Wild as the sole panelist in this matter on July 4, 2016. 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.

The Panel notes that Respondent was notified of the proceeding in both English and German. Respondent has not filed any response, and the Panel accepts Complainant's request for English to be the language of the proceeding, and has rendered its decision in English accordingly.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is a leading producer and seller in the prescription pharmaceutical products market.

It is present worldwide, including in the United States.

Complainant and its trademark SANOFI enjoy a worldwide reputation. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations around the world, for example:

- French trademark registration 1482708 SANOFI, registered on August 11, 1988;

- United States trademark registration 4178199 SANOFI, registered on July 24, 2012.

In addition, Complainant owns the following domain names reflecting its trademark:

- <sanofi.com> created on October 13, 1995;

- <sanofi.eu> created on March 12, 2006;

- <sanofi.us> created on May 16, 2006.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 4, 2016. The disputed domain name resolves to a place holding website without real content.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

According to Complainant, the disputed domain name <sanoif.com> is identical or at least confusingly similar to its trademark SANOFI, the switch of the last two letters being only a sign of typosquatting and having no influence on the overall appearance of the disputed domain name. Complainant also maintains that the trademark SANOFI is well known and furthermore alleges that Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that registration and use of the disputed domain name are in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts that it is a well-established and well-known manufacturer of prescription and other pharmaceutical products in France with worldwide presence. It has used the SANOFI mark ("Complainant's Trademark") in connection with pharmaceuticals for many years.

Complainant further shows that it is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the mark SANOFI including in France, as International Registrations, and in the United States, the earliest one going back to at least 1988 which clearly predates creation of the disputed domain name. Respondent disputes none of this.

Complainant has registered rights in the SANOFI trademark in connection with pharmceutical products. Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is almost identical to its well-known, registered trademark SANOFI, with the switch of the last two letters from "fi" to "if" and that this is a clear indication of typosquatting. The Panel finds that Internet users are likely to read the disputed domain name as "sanofi" and not "sanoif", as the dominating beginning of the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's trademark and the reversed sequence of the letter "f" and "i" alone, at the end of the disputed domain name, in this context has no influence on the overall impression created by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Panel refers to numerous earlier UDRP decisions in which panels decided that SANOFI was a well-known trademark of Complainant (see, e.g., Sanofi v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection, Inc. / Jim Moretta, WIPO Case No. D2016-0096).

For these reasons the Panel finds:

a) Complainant has rights in the trademark SANOFI.

b) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademark.

Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy is met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The website to which the disputed domain name resolves gives no indication of Respondent's possible rights or legitimate interests nor of any possible bona fide offerings of goods or services. Neither does Respondent's name reveal any such indication.

The burden of proof is on Complainant to demonstrate a prima facie case that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. After that, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

In light of the evidence, and in the absence of a response by Respondent, the Panel accepts Complainant's allegations as true that Respondent has no authorization to use the SANOFI trademark in the disputed domain name.

The Panel accepts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights, and Respondent is not authorized or licensed by Complainant.

On this basis the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the second element of the policy is met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

As discussed in 6.A. above, numerous UDRP panels found Complainant's trademark SANOFI to be well known and the Panel in the present case concurs. The registration of a domain name which is identical or confusingly similar to a widely known trademark has repeatedly been found to establish a respondent's bad faith in registration and use (see Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Vyacheslav Nechaev, WIPO Case No. D2012-0384). The Panel comes to the conclusion that Respondent likely knew Complainant's trademark; there is no evidence to the contrary and therefore the Panel accepts Complainant's contentions in this regard that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

In Telstra Corporative Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, the panel found that it was not necessary for the respondent to actively use the disputed domain name, but that passive holding could establish use in bad faith as well. In the present case, the conditions for such finding are present: Complainant's trademark is widely known, Respondent did not participate in the proceeding and gave no plausible explanation for selecting the disputed domain name and the address given by Respondent in the WhoIs appears to be incomplete or wrong (see also Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Charles Duke / Oneandone Private Registration, WIPO Case No. D2013-0875).

On this basis, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and the third element of the policy is met.

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 <sanoif.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Peter Wild
Sole Panelist
Date: July 6, 2016

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