WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sanofi v. Francisco Sánchez Fernández, inserious Case No. D2019-0169 1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Francisco Sánchez Fernández, inserious of Madrid, Spain. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Soluciones Corporativas IP, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 24, 2019. On January 24, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 25, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 29, 2019 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 January 30, 2019.

On January 29, 2019, the Center sent an email in English and Spanish regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant requested that English be the language of proceeding on January 31, 2019. The Respondent did not respond regarding the language of 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 February 5, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 25, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 27, 2019.

The Center appointed Rodrigo Azevedo as the sole panelist in this matter on March 6, 2019. 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 one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, developing, manufacturing, distributing and selling a wide variety of pharmaceutical products under the trademark and trade name SANOFI.

The Complainant registered the SANOFI trademark in multiple jurisdictions throughout the world, since at least 1988, such as SANOFI French trademark, number 1482708, registered on August 11, 1988.

The Complainant also owns and operates several domain names incorporating its SANOFI mark, such as (registered in 1995) and (registered in 2006).

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on January 8, 2019.

The Panel accessed the disputed domain name on March 14, 2019, which resolved to a registrar-parking page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant makes the following contentions:

- The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Firstly, the disputed domain name reproduces SANOFI trademarks and domain names, which, as themselves, do not have any particular meaning and are therefore highly distinctive. Secondly, the Complainant is a multinational company in the pharmaceutical field which develops, manufactures, distributes and sells a wide variety of pharmaceutical products under the trademark and trade name SANOFI. It has used its SANOFI trademark and trade name for over 40 years and invested substantial financial resources over the years to advertise and promote the company and its SANOFI trademarks and domain names in countries all over the world, including in Spain. Thirdly, the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names as the unique and dominant part of the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to prior above cited trademarks, regardless of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.fun”. The new gTLD extension “.fun” is made up of a word that been universally understood in many languages which generally refers to recreation or entertainment. The new general domain extension “.fun” provides an alternative to traditional extensions and can be used for marketing specific purposes, plus potentially attract and reach new customer groups internationally as well as Internet users searching for information/products/services in the related field. Therefore, this extension remains, as such, insufficient to avoid confusing similarity. Fourthly, there exists an inevitable risk that the disputed domain name will cause confusion, as it could lead average consumers to mistakenly believe that the disputed domain name is related to the official SANOFI websites. Finally, it must be taken into account that the likelihood of confusion is strengthened by the reputation of the Complainant’s trade name, trademarks, domain names and goodwill.

- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Firstly, it is obvious that the Respondent does not have any legitimate interest in using the disputed domain name since the Respondent did not even indicate his/her/its true identity. Indeed, the details provided on the identity of the Registrant are only “inserious” and the country. Such incomplete details should serve as an indicator of an absence of legitimate interest. Secondly, the Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register any domain name including the above-mentioned trademarks. The Respondent has neither prior right nor legitimate interest to justify the use of the already well-known and worldwide trademarks and domain names of the Complainant. Consequently, there is no relationship whatsoever between the parties an