PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its NOVARTIS trademark, as it is a combination of this wholly incorporated trademark and of a generic term. This last element is sufficient to support the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. The mere addition of a generic term to the Complainant’s trademark does not change the overall impression of a most likely connection with the trademark NOVARTIS of the Complainant. The specific term (PHARM) makes the confusion stronger, as it directly relates to the Complainant’s activities. As to the gTLD “.com”, the Complainant suggests that it should be disregarded, as per the usual practice.
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, the Complainant is not affiliated with the Respondent nor has it ever authorised the Respondent to register its trademark as a domain name, and the Complainant has no business with the Respondent.
According to the Complainant, given the seniority, distinctiveness and worldwide reputation of the NOVARTIS trademark, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark in an intentionally designed way, with the aim to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names, and this is evidence of the fact that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
With respect to use in bad faith, the Complainant points out that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name so as to redirect users to what appears to be a fraudulent/inactive website, a fact that -in combination with the incorporation of a famous trademark in a domain name- proves use in bad faith. Further, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of other bad faith registrations, listed the disputed domain name for sale, did not respond to its cease and desist letter and concealed its identity through a privacy company.
For all these reasons, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.
|