According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant is one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups. It provides solutions to address the evolving needs of patients worldwide by developing and delivering innovative medical treatments and drugs. Complainant was created in 1996 through a merger of two other companies Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz. Complainant’s products are manufactured and sold in many regions worldwide. Complainant has a strong presence in Russia where Respondent is located. In particular, Complainant uses the domain name <novartis.ru> to communicate with its Russian customers.
The disputed domain name <novartis-teva.site> was registered on 5 October 2020 and is held by Respondent.
According to the information provided by Complainant there is no website to which the disputed domain name resolves.
The trademark registration of Complainant has been issued prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark as it incorporates Complainant’s well-known, distinctive trademark NOVARTIS in combination with another brand “teva”, separated by the symbol “-“.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant and Respondent have never had any previous relationships, nor has Complainant ever granted Respondent with any rights to use the NOVARTIS trademark in any form, including in the disputed domain name. Complainant submits that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has interest in the disputed domain name. By the time Complainant prepared its Complaint on 28 October 2020, the disputed domain name resolved to a blank website that displayed a sentence “Default campaign not found”. Complainant concludes that Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name and has not been using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services.
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. It is highly unlikely that Respondent was not aware of Complainant’s prior rights in the trademark NOVARTIS at the time of registering the disputed domain name, given Complainant’s worldwide renown. As noted above, Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name resolves to a blank website which falls into the category of passive holding, which means bad faith use.
|