1. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Many Panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a Complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. This is the case in the case at issue where the Complainant’s trademark “NOVARTIS” is fully included in the disputed domain name. The generic and descriptive term (i.e. live) that follows the Complainant’s trademark “NOVARTIS” in the disputed domain name is not able to prevent the possibility of confusion amongst consumers. In fact, the trademark “NOVARTIS” is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name.
2. In the absence of any Response, or any other information from the Respondent indicating the contrary, the Panel further holds that the Complainant successfully presented its prima facie case and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. In addition, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Finally, the disputed domain name resolved to a website displaying advertisement for a domain name “ag88.com” which appeared to be a gambling website. This Panel finds that such use can neither be considered as bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
3. Finally, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is the view of this Panel that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name which totally reproduces the Complainant’s trademarks NOVARTIS. By the time the disputed domain name was registered, it is unlikely that the Respondent did not have knowledge of the Complainant’s rights on its trademark NOVARTIS. The Complainant also proved that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website displaying advertisement for a domain name “ag88.com” which appeared to be a gambling website. These facts, including the failure to submit a Response, the failure to respond to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant in relation to the disputed domain name, also confirm that the disputed domain name is used to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site or location, or of a product or service on the Respondent's web site or location.
|