The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n
A. Complainant<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant is part of the Servier group, which is the largest French pharmaceutical group of an independent level and the second largest pharmaceutical French group worldwide. The Complainant’s group personnel comprise over 21,000 employees across 150 countries, in which 100 million patients are treated daily with Servier medicinal products and generics. <\/p>\n In addition to the trade marks mentioned under the above section 'Identification of Rights', and other trade marks in its portfolio, the Complainant also owns and operates its business though the domain name <servier.com>, which was registered in 1998.<\/p>\n B. Respondent<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has therefore made no factual allegations.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <servierconnect.com> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " A. Complainant <\/strong><\/p>\n A.1 Preliminary matter: Language of the Proceeding <\/strong><\/p>\n On the matter of the language of the proceedings, the Panel notes the following:<\/p>\n • The Complaint is written in English and the Complainant has made a pre-emptive request that English be the language of this UDRP administrative proceeding;<\/p>\n • The registrar's verification response provided that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese; and<\/p>\n • The Complainant's grounds for English to be the language of this UDRP administrative proceeding can be summarised as follows: (i) the Complainant is unable to communicate in Chinese and the Panel's determination of Chinese as the language of the proceeding would be inequitable and burdensome owing to the delay and costs associated with translations; (ii) the use of the English word 'connect' in the disputed domain name string suggests that the Respondent is able to communicate in English; (iii) English language is not the native language of any of the parties, such that choosing English as the language of the proceedings would not give the Complainant unfair advantage over the Respondent; and (iv) English is widely recognised as an international language, such that it would be fair to both parties to conduct the proceedings in English.<\/p>\n A.2 Substantive grounds <\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant's submissions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n I. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name <servierconnect.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark, to the extent that the disputed domain name reproduces the trade mark SERVIER in its entirety. The addition of the generic word 'connect' to the disputed domain name string does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant's trade mark SERVIER. Instead, the generic word 'connect' could be used for a web portal or mobile application by any company within a broad range of business areas.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the generic top-level domains ('gTLDs'), in this case <.com>, are typically disregarded by UDRP panels under this UDRP Policy ground.<\/p>\n II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, owing to the following indicia:<\/p>\n • The Respondent is not affiliated or otherwise connected with the Respondent, nor has the Complainant authorised the Respondent to use the trade mark SERVIER in any form, not least in the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n • The Complainant does not hold any trade mark rights in the term 'servier';<\/p>\n • There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and<\/p>\n • The Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor has the Respondent shown demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of good or services. The Respondent’s website directs to an error page.<\/p>\n In view of the above, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name.<\/p>\n III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant advances the following grounds in support of a finding of registration in bad faith:<\/p>\n • The Servier group is so widely known that it is very unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant;<\/p>\n • 'Servier' is the Complainant's founder's surname, which is a fanciful term devoid of any meaning except in German language where it has the meaning of 'serve'; and<\/p>\n • The Complainant has a subsidiary in China, where the Respondent appears to reside.<\/p>\n Use<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant submits that it is not possible to conceive any bona fide use of the disputed domain name which currently directs to an error page.<\/p>\n The Complainant alludes to the doctrine of passive holding to support its claim for a finding of bad faith (in particular, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-003; and paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ('the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0').<\/p>\n The Complainant further submits that, considering the distinctiveness and intensive use of the Complainant's trade mark SERVIER, and the reputation of the Complainant, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n B. Respondent <\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has therefore failed to advance any substantive case on the merits. <\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Panel makes no ruling on this UDRP Policy ground for the reasons set forth in section 'Principal Reasons for the Decision' further below.<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " A. Complainant<\/strong>'s Language Request<\/strong><\/p>\n The Panel is given discretion under Rule 11 of the UDRP Rules to determine the appropriate language of the UDRP administrative proceeding. The Panel notes Rule 10 of the UDRP Rules, which vests the Panel with authority to conduct the proceedings in a manner it deems appropriate while also ensuring both that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.<\/p>\n On this particular matter, the Panel applied the language of proceeding test set out in CAC Case no. 104144, Writera Limited v. alexander ershov, which helpfully sets out the following six guiding factors:<\/p>\n (i) the language of the disputed domain name string<\/strong>: the Panel considers that English is the only identifiable language in the disputed domain name string, namely the generic word 'connect';<\/p>\n (ii) the content of the Respondent<\/strong>'s website<\/strong>: the Respondent’s website hosts content in Chinese only;<\/p>\n (iii) the language(s) of the Parties<\/strong>: the Complainant is a French company and the Respondent appears to be a Chinese national residing in China. English would therefore be considered neutral for both Parties;<\/p>\n (iv) the Respondent<\/strong>'s behaviour<\/strong>: the Panel notes that the Respondent has shown no inclination to participate in this UDRP administrative proceeding;<\/p>\n (v) the Panel<\/strong>'s overall concern with due process<\/strong>: the Panel has discharged its duty under Rule 10 (c) of the UDRP Rules; and<\/p>\n (vi) the balance of convenience<\/strong>: while determining the language of the UDRP administrative proceeding, the Panel has a duty to consider who would suffer the greatest inconvenience as a result of the Panel's determination. On the one hand, the determination of English as the language of this UDRP administrative proceeding – a widely spoken language – is unlikely to cause the Respondent any inconvenience. The determination of Chinese as the language of this UDRP administrative proceeding, on the other hand, is very likely to cause the Complainant inconvenience, and to interfere with the overall due expedition of the proceedings under the UDRP Rules.<\/p>\n In view of the above factors, the Panel has decided to accept the Complainant’s language request, such that the decision in the present matter will be rendered in English.<\/p>\n The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Rejected",
"panelists": [
"Yana Zhou"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-12-15 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade marks, amongst others:<\/p>\n • EU trade mark registration no. 004279171, dated 7 February 2005, for the word mark SERVIER, in classes 5, 35, 41 and 42 of the Nice Classification;<\/p>\n • International trade mark registration no. 814214, dated 5 August 2003, designating China amongst others, for the word mark SERVIER, in classes 5, 35, 41, 42 and 44 of the Nice Classification;<\/p>\n • International trade mark registration no. 571972, dated 29 May 1991, designating China amongst others, for the figurative mark SERVIER, in classes 1, 3 and 5 of the Nice Classification; and<\/p>\n (Hereinafter, collectively or individually 'the Complainant's trade mark' or 'the trade mark SERVIER' interchangeably).<\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered on 23 September 2023 and, at the time of writing this decision, it resolves to an active website, the particulars of which are discussed further below ('the Respondent's website').<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"servierconnect.com": "REJECTED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n