Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107707

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

• International trademark: NOVARTIS, Reg. No. 663765, Registration Date: July 1, 1996;

• International Trademark: NOVARTIS, Reg. no: 1349878, Reg. date: November 29, 2016;

• International Trademark, designating the UK: NOVARTIS, Reg. no. 1544148, Reg. date: March 25, 2024;

• International Trademark, designating the UK: NOVARTIS, Reg. no. 1803328, Reg. date: June 29, 2020;

• UK trademark: NOVARTIS, Reg. No. UK00900304857, Registration Date: June 25, 1999;

• UK trademark: NOVARTIS, Reg. No. UK00801349878, Registration Date: November 17, 2017;

• US trademark: NOVARTIS, Reg No. 4986124, Registration Date: June 28, 2016;

• EU trademark: NOVARTIS, Reg. No. 304857, Registration Date: June 25, 1999.

The Complainant is Novartis AG, a Swiss holding company at the head of a globally operating pharmaceutical and healthcare group.

The disputed domain name <novartisglobalconsultancy.com> was registered by Respondent on May 25, 2025. The Complaint was filed on June 27, 2025. 

The Complainant holds numerous valid trademark registrations for the NOVARTIS mark worldwide, with protection in jurisdictions such as Switzerland, the EU, the UK, and the US. These registrations significantly predate the Respondent’s domain name registration. The Respondent did not submit a Response despite proper notification of the proceedings.

• The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered NOVARTIS trademarks.
• The Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
• The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, including by passive holding and potential phishing activity through MX records.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

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 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 Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

For the Complainant to succeed it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that:
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

I. Identical or Confusingly Similar 

The Complainant has established the fact that it has valid rights for the NOVARTIS trademarks specified in paragraph “Identification of rights” above whereas the international trademark No 663765 has been registered on July 1, 1996.

The disputed domain name has been registered on May 25, 2025, i.e. almost 29 years after the trademark registration. 

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s NOVARTIS trademark in its entirety, followed by the descriptive terms “global consultancy”. The NOVARTIS trademark remains clearly recognizable and dominant in the disputed domain name. The addition of descriptive terms does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The addition of the generic top-level domain ".COM" does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademarks.

Therefore, the Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks “NOVARTIS” in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

II. Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the Complainant to succeed it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

The Complainant has established a prima facie case (not challenged by the Respondent who did not filed any response to the complaint) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, since the Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant, has not been authorized or licensed to use the Complainant's trademarks,  there is no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the term “NOVARTIS” or that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name instead resolves to a parking or inactive page. There is also no evidence, that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

Given the Respondent's failure to respond and the absence of any apparent legitimate use of the disputed domain name, the Panel considers that 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).

III. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

For the Complainant to succeed it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name which consists of the Complainant’s trademark “NOVARTIS” and the descriptive terms “global consultancy”. There are no doubts that the Complainant’s trademarks are distinctive and well-known, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. It could be therefore concluded that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith as the Respondent had or should have the Complainant and its prior trademark rights in mind when registering the disputed domain name and the Respondent's registration cannot be therefore considered coincidental.

Use of such disputed domain name could, therefore, attract the internet users to the corresponding web page by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). 

The active MX records associated to the disputed domain name that doesn’t resolve to an active webpage suggests possible future use of the disputed domain name for fraudulent e-mail schemes.

The Respondent's failure to respond to the cease-and-desist letter further supports the inference of bad faith.

Thus, 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 Panel considers that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name <novartisglobalconsultancy.com> is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has thus established all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.