1. The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy). In particular, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark "NOVARTIS".
In this regard, it shall be reminded how several previous UDRP panels have held that the addition of a generic term associated to a trademark does not create a new or different right to the mark, nor diminish confusing similarity, especially if the trademark at stake is well-known, circumstance which has been widely confirmed in the present case.
Therefore, the disputed domain name should be considered as confusingly similar to the trademark NOVARTIS.
2. The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
The Panel finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, neither of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor is commonly known under the disputed domain name. This prima facie evidence was not challenged by the Respondent, which did not file any Response to the complaint of Novartis.
As a matter of fact, there are no arguments why the Respondent could have own rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. "NOVARTIS" definitely is a distinctive sign used by the Complainant as business name and trademark in order to denote its products and services, also online. Therefore, the Panel accepts the contentions of the Complainant that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
3. The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name to have been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
As stated above, the Panel finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, neither of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor is commonly known under the disputed domain name. This prima facie evidence was not challenged by the Respondent.
In the absence of a Response and given the reputation of the Complainant and its trademarks, the Panel infers that the Respondent had the Complainant's trademarks "NOVARTIS" in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
As prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use (WIPO - D2000-0003 - Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows and WIPO - D2000-0400 - CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen).
Furthermore, the fact that the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's C&D letter represents a demonstration of a potential bad faith on the Respondent's side.
Consequently, the Panel believes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being (passively) used in bad faith, in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the mark in the disputed domain name.
|