WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sanofi v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Daniel Kobelau Case No. D2019-1191 1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama / Daniel Kobelau, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 23, 2019. On May 24, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 28, 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 May 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 May 29, 2019.

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 May 29, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 18, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 26, 2019.

The Center appointed Charters Macdonald-Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on July 8, 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 a French multinational pharmaceutical company, which has a business presence in over 100 countries around the world. It engages in research and development, the manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products for sale, develops over-the-counter medication and is the world’s 4th largest pharmaceutical company by prescription sales.

The Complainant offers a wide range of prescription drugs. “Plavix” is the brand name of one of the Complainant’s drug products, which is used primarily in the treatment of atherothrombotic conditions. To date, Plavix has been used to treat over 100 million patients worldwide and is considered to be one of the two leading drugs in the category of thrombosis medicines.

The Complainant is the owner of a number of registered trade marks around the world for PLAVIX, including:

- French trade mark PLAVIX (word) no. 93484877, registered on July 28, 1993 for pharmaceutical products in Class 5,
- International trade mark PLAVIX (word) no. 613041, registered on December 27, 1993 for pharmaceutical products in Class 5, and designating inter alia Austria, Benelux, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Morocco, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine and Viet Nam,
- European Union trade mark PLAVIX (word) no. 002236578, registered on April 18, 2002 for pharmaceutical products in Class 5, and
- United States of America trade mark PLAVIX (word) no. 2042583, registered on March 11, 1997 for pharmaceutical products in Class 5.

The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names, which contain the term “plavix”, including:

- , registered on May 16, 2002, and
- , registered on November 19, 1999.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 25, 2019.

The disputed domain name directs to a website, which lists the details of three online pharmacies, the price of the Complainant’s Plavix drug (which is said to be available from each of them) is listed, as well as further information such as shipping costs and time, available payment methods and accepted currencies. Upon clicking on the price of the Plavix drug on at least one of the online pharmacies listed (“SKY Pharmacy”), users are directed to another website from which it appears to be possible to purchase the Complainant’s Plavix drug. The Complainant contends that the information regarding its Plavix drug displayed on the website hosted at the disputed domain name is “false, inaccurate and misleading” and moreover points out that Plavix is a prescription drug (and, presumably therefore, should not be available from a direct-to-consumer website). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends as follows:

1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PLAVIX mark, which is the subject of various registrations. In particular:
1.1 the Complainant’s PLAVIX marks are held in various territories around the world and each of them pre-dates the registration of the disputed domain name,

1.2 the disputed domain name entirely reproduces, as the unique and dominant component, the Complainant’s PLAVIX mark, which does not have any particular meaning and is therefore highly distinctive,

1.3 the reproduction of the Complainant’s PLAVIX mark as the dominant component of the disputed domain name is the use of a confusingly similar mark, regardless of the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) suffix “.team. It is well established that the TLD component of a domain name should be disregarded in a comparison between a disputed domain name and a trade mark, as it does not serve to distinguish domain names. The relevant comparison is to be made with the second level portion of the domain name, and

1.4 it must be taken into account that the likelihood of confusion is ascertained by the reputation of the Complainant’s trade name, trade marks, domain names and general goodwill. To this end, panels have rendered numerous decisions involving the Complainant’s PLAVIX marks, proving the reputation and attraction of them. These decisions include inter alia:

D2019-0505 - ,
D2019-0506 - , and
D2018-1339 - .

2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular:

2.1 it is obvious that the Respondent has no legitimate int