The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
The Complainant cites the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview, version 3.0, para 3.1.1 and 3.1.4, and also highlights how the Respondent registered the disputed domain name through a proxy/privacy service.
The submissions that quote from and rely upon para 3.1.1 are not well founded, as they relate to situations where the primary intention of a Respondent is to resell a domain name (that is, the situation contemplated in paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. There is no evidence, in the Complaint or elsewhere, that this has occurred in the present situation.
However, the submissions in light of para 3.1.4, relating to the Respondent having intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, are considerably stronger. These points in the Overview correspond to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. There is ample evidence in support of this contention, including the well-known nature of the Complainant's mark (including in the Respondent's jurisdiction), the artificial nature of the mark NOVARTIS (derived from the Latin words nova (or novae) artes, but in essence coined by the Complainant at its foundation), and - in particular - the activities of the Respondent in seeking to draw users to its financial services (and gather personal and financial data) through a domain name which incorporates the Complainant's mark in full and without any justification or explanation.
The Panel also notes the Complainant's contention, supported by authority, that the NOVARTIS mark is distinctive and well-known, and has been acknowledged as such in various decisions made under the Policy.
|