COMPLAINANT
A. THE DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
The disputed domain name, which was registered on March 7, 2021, according to the WHOIS. It incorporates the Complainant's well-known, distinctive trademark NOVARTIS in its entirety and the generic term "webinar", which is closely related to the Complainant and its business activities. Therefore, could lead consumers to assume that the disputed domain name is an official website of the Complainant. The addition of the gTLD ".org" does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name.
The same reasoning should apply in the current case, and the disputed domain name should be considered confusingly similar to the trademark NOVARTIS.
B. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DOMAIN NAME
The Complainant and the Respondent have never had any previous relationships, nor has the Complainant ever granted the Respondent any rights to use the NOVARTIS trademark in any form, including the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or has legitimate interest over the disputed domain name. When searched for "Novartiswebinar" in the Google search engine, the returned results all pointed to the Complainant and its business activities.
The Respondent could have easily performed a similar search before registering the disputed domain name and quickly learned that the Complainant owns the trademarks. The Complainant has been using its trademarks in Egypt Respondent resides and many other countries worldwide. However, the Respondent still chose to register the disputed domain name as such.
Furthermore, according to the Registrar Verification, the Respondent is an individual named "John Elsawaf", which is not related to the term "Novartis" or the Complainant in any form.
By the time the Complainant prepared this amended Complaint on April 15, 2021, the disputed domain name did not resolve to any active website.
From the Complainant's perspective, the Respondent deliberately chose to use the well-known, distinctive trademark NOVARTIS as the body of the disputed domain name, very likely with the intention to benefit from the Complainant's worldwide renown and to confuse Internet users as to the source or sponsorship and therefore cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services.
For the preceding reasons, it shall be concluded that the Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.
C. THE DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH
i. THE DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED IN BAD FAITH
It should be highlighted that most of the Complainant's trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name, and the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to register the disputed domain name.
Considering the renown of the Complainant and its trademark NOVARTIS, and the overall composition of the disputed domain name, i.e., using the term "Novartis" in connection with the word "webinar", it follows that incorporating the well-known trademark NOVARTIS in the disputed domain name is a deliberate and calculated attempt to improperly benefit from the Complainant's rights and reputation.
Additionally, because:
• The Respondent very likely knew about the Complainant and its trademark;
• The Complainant's trademark NOVARTIS is a distinctive, well-known trademark worldwide and in Egypt where the Respondent resides;
• The Respondent has failed in presenting a credible evidence-backed rationale for registering the disputed domain name
the disputed domain name shall be deemed as registered in bad faith.
ii. THE DOMAIN NAME IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH
Firstly, as noted in the previous paragraphs, the disputed domain name did not resolve any active website.
Secondly, the Complainant has tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist notice sent on March 15, 2021, through the emails provided in the WHOIS, as the registrant was under privacy shield. However, until the Complainant prepared this amended Complaint, it has not received any response from the Respondent.
The Respondent's non-response to the cease-and-desist letter infers bad faith use of the disputed domain name.
Thirdly, the Respondent has been using a privacy shield to conceal its identity.
Consequently, the Respondent should be considered to have registered the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known, distinctive trademark NOVARTIS. The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is of any legitimate right or interest in using the disputed domain name, but instead registered and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
RESPONDENT
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.
|