WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sanofi v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Yujuan Ma Case No. D2019-1493 1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America / Yujuan Ma, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 26, 2019. On June 27, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 27, 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 June 28, 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 July 1, 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 July 9, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 29, 2019. The Respondent submitted an email communication on July 9, 2019.

The proceedings were suspended at the Complainant’s request between July 10, 2019 and August 12, 2019, without any mutual agreement being concluded. Accordingly, the Response due date was updated to September 1, 2019. No formal Response was filed with the Center. On September 4, 2019 the Center notified the Parties that it will proceed to panel appointment process.

The Center appointed Marilena Comănescu as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 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.

The language of the proceeding is English. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant Sanofi is a French multinational pharmaceutical company ranking first in Europe and the fourth in the world in its industry. The Complainant is active in more than 100 countries on all five continents employing more than 100,000 people.

The Complainant has a large portfolio of registrations for the SANOFI mark worldwide including:

- the European Union Trademark SANOFI (stylized), registration number 0596023, registered on February 1, 1999, for goods in International Classes 3 and 5, and

- the International Trademark SANOFI, registration number 674936, registered on June 11, 1997, for goods in International Classes 3 and 5.

The Complainant holds and uses a number of domain name registrations which wholly incorporate the SANOFI mark, including , , , and .

It is undisputed that the Complainant’s trademark is well-known worldwide. See for example Sanofi v. Sanofi India,WIPO Case No. D2019-0695, Sanofi v. Jamey Kirkes,WIPO Case No. D2019-0657, Sanofi v. Nicholas Woolf,WIPO Case No. D2018-1747 and Sanofi v. John Valley,WIPO Case No. D2018-2575.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 20, 2018, and, according to the evidence provided in the Complaint, it was used in connection with a service provider presentation page and it was depicting the Complainant’s trademark. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark SANOFI with an additional generic term, the Respondent has no rights or l