{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107619", "time_of_filling": "2025-06-02 08:45:20", "domain_names": [ "alainmerieux.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "INSTITUT MERIEUX" ], "complainant_representative": "French and European Trademark & Design Attorney Fabrice BIRCKER (Plasseraud IP)", "respondent": [ "Abderrahmane Zeryouh" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant, INSTITUT MERIEUX, is a French company operating worldwide in biology and medicine since its establishment in 1897. The Complainant’s chairman’s name is Alain Mérieux and he is both a businessman and a philanthropist, he is also the chairman of the Fondation Mérieux. Besides their operation in different countries, <\/span>Fondation Mérieux and Institut Pasteur du Maroc in Morocco have joined forces to build a new Centre of diagnostics and expertise for tuberculosis and mycobacteria in Casablanca. The companies in connection to the Complainant, where Alain Mérieux is authorized, also operates in immunology and nutritional sciences.<\/p>\n

The Complainant holds many trademark registrations including “MERIEUX” and “INSTITUT MERIEUX” phrases going back to 2010.<\/p>\n

On September 12, 2024; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <alainmerieux.com>. The disputed domain name is currently inactive.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known trademark “MERIEUX”, as it bears the Complainant’s trademark as a whole except for the addition of the name “ALAIN”, which forms the name of the chairman of the Complainant company.<\/p>\n

    The Complainant claims that where a side-by-side comparison of the disputed domain name and the textual component of the relevant trademark shows the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, then the disputed domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. It is further claimed that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent any finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term(s) may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements.<\/p>\n

    Besides, similar cases involving a disputed domain name consisting the reproduction of a trademark with the addition of a first name were referred to by the Complainant to support the claim that the UDRP panels steadily issue a confusing similarity decision.<\/p>\n

    Lastly, the Complainant argued that the generic top-level domain (gTLD) may be ignored for the purpose of assessing the confusing similarity, because of its merely technical function.<\/p>\n

    2. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n

    The Complainant states that it has never granted the Respondent with any rights to use the “MERIEUX” trademarks in any form, including in the disputed domain names. Also, the Complainant has not found that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain names or has any trademark rights that may be basis for the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

    The Complainant asserted that the Respondent could have easily performed an online search before registering the disputed domain names and would have quickly learnt that the trademark is owned by the Complainant and that the Complainant has been using these distinctive and well-known trademarks for its business activities.<\/p>\n

    The Complainant further argues that there is absolutely no evidence of any fair or non-commercial or bona fide use of the disputed domain name in connection with goods and services because the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page displaying sponsored links in the medical field and therefore promoting competing activities when preparing the Complaint.<\/p>\n

    Moreover, the Complainant claims that any legitimate interest of the Respondent in the disputed domain name is all the more inconceivable that the Complainant’s rights are globally well-known and exclusively related with the Complainant. In this respect, it is stated that the nature of the disputed domain name (in as far as it reproduces the Complainant’s mark in an identical way with the element “alain” which is precisely the name of the Complainant’s Chairman and a well-known businessman) carries a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant, and therefore cannot constitute fair use, as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant, as per WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.<\/p>\n

    3. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n

    The Complainant states that its trademark “MERIEUX” predates the disputed domain name and it is intrinsically highly distinctive and exclusively related with the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that its trademarks’ well-known character has already been recognized by previous panel decisions, by referring to the examples below:<\/p>\n