Westmore · UDRP DecisionSanofi.xyz
The Panel ordered transfer of <sanofi.xyz> based on the Respondent’s genuine unilateral consent to transfer. It did not consider the three substantive elements under paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP and expressly made no findings adverse to the Respondent. Although the registration agreement was in Chinese, the Panel selected English as the language of the proceeding in view of the Respondent’s bilingual communications, absence of a formal Response, consent to transfer, and considerations of time and cost.
The timeline behind sanofi.xyz
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind sanofi.xyz — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates the consent-to-transfer approach under which a panel may order transfer without deciding any substantive UDRP element. It also shows how a respondent’s bilingual communications, nonparticipation through a formal Response, and consent can affect the panel’s procedural-language determination.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sanofi v. yang yi Case No. D2015-0055 1. The Parties The Complainant is Sanofi of Paris, France, represented by Selarl Marchais & Associés, France. The Respondent is yang yi of, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <sanofi.xyz> isregistered with Xin Net Technology Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 14, 2015. On January 14, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 15, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On January 16, 2015, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceedings. On January 16, 2015, the Complainant submitted its request that English be the language of the proceedings. On January 17, 2015, the Respondent submitted its request that Chinese be the language of the proceedings. On January 17, 2015, the Complainant submitted its amended request that English be the language of the proceedings. The Center verified that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint in English and Chinese, and the proceedings commenced on January 23, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 12, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any formal Response. On January 17, 19 and 24, 2015, the Center received informal emails from the Respondent. On February 10, 2015, the Respondent informed the Center that the Respondent was willing to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant, and, on the same date, the Complainant’s request that the proceedings be suspended for one month to enable the parties to explore settlement was granted by the Center. On March 9, 2015, the Complainant’s request for reinstitution of the proceedings was granted by the Center. On March 9 and 10, 2015, the Respondent sent further emails to the Center confirming that the Respondent wished to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. On March 10, 2015, the Center notified the parties that it would proceed with panel appointment if it did not hear from the Complainant by March 11, 2015 regarding suspension of the proceedings. The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on March 23, 2015. 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. Discussion and Findings 4.1. Language of the Proceedings The language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceedings shall be the language of the registration agreement. Paragraph 11(a) allows the Panel to determine the language of the proceedings having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceedings. In other words, it is important to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Language requirements should not lead to undue burdens being placed on the parties and undue delay to the proceedings. The Complainant has requested that English be the language of the proceedings, for the following reasons: (1) The Complainant “is a worldwide international company with trademark registrations in multiple countries, including China, and whose international business is primarily operated in English. Therefore, the Complainant is not able to communicate in Chinese”; (2) The disputed domain name is an English language domain name registered in Latin script; (3) If required to submit the Complaint and Annexes in Chinese, the Complainant would incur substantial translation costs and the proceedings would be delayed; (4) The Registration Agreement is available in English as well as Chinese; (5) The Respondent sent its language request to the Center in both Chinese and English, which demonstrates that the Respondent is perfectly acquainted with English. Prior to notifying the Center of the Respondent’s consent to the transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant, the Respondent requested that Chinese be the language of the proceedings, for the following reasons: (1) The Respondent and the Complainant have not reached any agreement as to the language of the proceedings; (2) As the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese, the language of the proceedings should be Chinese; and (3) The disputed domain name was registered in China. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs. The Panel does not find the first, second and fourth grounds relied upon by the Complainant at all convincing. In relation to ground one, as a worldwide international company with a strong presence in China, the Panel considers the Complainant should have little difficulty arranging for translation of the Complaint and the Annexes or appointing representatives familiar with the Chinese language. The Panel notes however that all of the Respondent’s email communications have been sent in both Chinese and English, which suggests the likely possibility that the Respondent is sufficiently proficient in the English language. The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure the proceedings are conducted in a timely and cost effective manner. The Panel considers the facts the Respondent: (1) has not filed a Response; and (2) has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name, are further relevant considerations in support of English as the language of the proceedings. Had the Respondent chosen to contest the proceedings, it is most likely the Panel would have decided that the language of the proceedings should be Chinese. Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceedings shall be English. 4.2. Consent to Transfer As noted above, the Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. “[A] genuine unilateral consent to transfer by the Respondent provides a basis for an immediate order for transfer without consideration of the paragraph 4(a) elements” (See The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. Mike Morgan , WIPO Case No. D2005-1132 . See also paragraph 4.13 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ). The Panel agrees with this approach. 5. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders, without making any findings adverse to the Respondent, that the disputed domain name <sanofi.xyz> be transferred to the Complainant. Sebastian M. W. Hughes Sole Panelist Date: April 6, 2015
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around sanofi.xyz
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.