Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1079.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:32:20+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Sanofi-aventis, of Paris, France, represented by Selarl Marchais De�Cand�, France.
The Respondent is Montanya Ltd., of Grand Cayman, Grand Cayman Islands, United�Kingdom of Great�Britain and Northern�Ireland.
The disputed domain name <sanofiaventissalesjewlery.com> (hereinafter�“Domain�Name”) is registered with Name.net LLC.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August�24,�2006. On August�25,�2006, the Center transmitted by email to Name.net LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name at issue. On August�31,�2006, Name.net LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs�2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September�1,�2006. On September�13,�2006, and on October�11,�2006, the Complainant requested a suspension of the proceedings for subsequent periods of thirty days. Consequently, the administrative proceeding was suspended until November�12,�2006. Upon reinstatement of the proceeding, on November�14,�2006, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph�5(a), the due date for Response was November�21,�2006. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November�22,�2006.
The Center appointed Anna Carabelli as the sole panelist in this matter on November�24,�2006. 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 independently determined and agrees with the assessment of the Center that the Complaint complies with the requirements of the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.
The Complainant also registered the domain names <sanofi-aventis.com>, <sanofiaventis.com>, <sanofiaventis.net> and <sanofi-aventis.co.uk> under which it operates websites. <sanofi-aventis.eu>, <sanofi-aventis.net> and <sanofi-aventis.biz>.
The Domain Name is used by the Respondent as a portal which, through “Popular Links” and “Popular Categories”, leads to websites some of which offer for sale Complainant’s direct competitors’ products.
- The Domain Name is being used to deceivingly attract, relying on the Complainant’s worldwide fame, and redirect Internet users to third parties’ sites (some of which offer online sale of products of the Complainant’s direct competitors) for commercial gain, derived from the collection of click-through fees.
The Complainant has established rights in the trademarks listed under paragraph�4 above, by submitting copies of several national, Community and international trademark registration certificates of the trademarks AVENTIS, SANOFI AND SANOFI-AVENTIS.
The Panel accepts that the Complainant’s name and trademarks are well-known as evidenced by Annexes 3, 4 and 25 attached to the Complaint and as confirmed by previous WIPO UDRP decisions (see among others Sanofi Aventis v. Holger Kirgis, WIPO Case No.�DES2006-0007; Sanofi-Aventis, Aventis Pharma SA v. Rear View Photograph Ltd., WIPO Case No.�D2005-0625; Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Nicki On, Case No.�D2003-0871; Aventis SA, Aventis Pharma SA. v. Nicki On, WIPO Case No.�D2003-0899).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks as it incorporates some of them in their entirety and since the addition of the generic suffix “salesjewlery” is not capable, to sufficiently differentiate the Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademarks.
Indeed, as established by several WIPO UDRP decisions: (i) the incorporation in a domain name of a distinctive trademark in its entirety creates sufficient similarity between that trademark and the domain name to create a likelihood of confusion (VoiceStream Wireless Corporation v. Salem Zeto, d/b/a/ Pacific Wireless Communications, d/b/a/ prepaidcellularwide.com, WIPO Case No.�D2002 – 0313); and (ii) the addition of generic terms to a domain name (such as “sales” and “jewlery” which obviously stands for jewellery) incorporating a well-known trademark in its entirety, not only does not eliminate a likelihood of confusion (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Cheaptamiflu.net, WIPO Case No.�D2005-1256; Ralph Maltby Enterprises, Inc. v. Women With Balls (W.W.B. Accessories), WIPO Case No.�D2004-0917; Microsoft Corporation v. 3D Roulette, WIPO Case No.�D2004-0232;) but may even reinforce the impression of an affiliation among the domain name and the complainant (Viacom International Inc. v. Frank F. Jackson and Nancy Miller, WIPO Case No.�D2003-0755).
The Complainant has established prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name under paragraph�4(c) of the Policy. According to a consistent line of WIPO UDRP decisions, in such a case the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to rebut the evidence (see among others Carolina Herrera, Ltd. v. Alberto Rincon Garcia, WIPO Case No.�D2002-0806; International Hospitality Management – IHM S.p.A. v. Enrico Callegari Ecostudio, WIPO Case No.�D2002-0683). As a consequence, the Respondent’s failure to rebut the Complaint’s allegations, allows the Panel to infer, taking into consideration the circumstances of this case, that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests.
Moreover, the Panel finds, in line with previous WIPO UDRP decisions, that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to divert Internet users to its websites and redirect them to other websites, some of which offer for sale the Complainant’s direct competitors’ products, presumably receiving compensation for this misdirection, cannot be considered a bona fide use of a domain name as per paragraph�4(c)(iii) of the Policy, (see e.g.: Lyonnaise de Banque v. Richard J., WIPO Case No.�D2006-0142, Motorola, Inc. v. Mr. Josip Broz, WIPO Case No.�D2002-1063).
Consequently, the Panel deems that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Names under paragraph�4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
As established in paragraph�6.A. above, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks which were registered before the Domain Name registration by the Respondent.
Therefore, in the light of the above and in consideration of the notoriety of the Complainant, the Panel finds it likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks, at the time it registered the Domain Name (see Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, WIPO Case No.�D2000-1397). Based on the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith.
Moreover, the Domain Name is used as a referral portal to divert Internet users, through “Popular Links” and “Popular Categories”, to third parties’ sites, some of which offer for sale the Complainant’s direct competitors’ products. Furthermore, it is very likely that the Respondent’s purpose in such use, is that of collecting referral or click-through fees.
Both the above circumstances have been held by various WIPO UDRP decisions as clear evidence of bad faith use of a domain name (see Members Equity PTY Limited v. Unasi Management Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2005-0383; Media West-CPI, Inc., Media West-DMR, Inc., Media West-GMP, Inc., Media West-GSI, Inc., Media West-PNI, Inc., Media West-PNJ, Inc., Media West-SJC, Inc., Media West-NPP, Inc., Cape Publications, Inc., Des Moines Register and Tribune Co., Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., Multimedia Holdings Corp., Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc. v. Unasi, Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2005-1336; Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Unasi, Inc., WIPO Case No.�D2005-0556).
As a consequence, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the element of bad faith according to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs�4(i) of the Policy and 15�of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <sanofiaventissalesjewlery.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.