Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108313

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names (the "Domain Names").

The Complainant relies upon various trade mark registrations that comprise or incorporate the term "Novartis", including:

(i)   International trade mark no. 663765, for NOVARTIS as a word mark, in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 40, 42 with a registration date of 1 July 1996, which has proceeded to registration at least in part in close to 50 territories;

(ii)   Australian trade mark no 712454, for NOVARTIS as a word mark in classes 5, 9, and 10 registered on 24 April 1998 with a priority date of 15 February 1996; and

(iii)   US trade mark no 4986124 for NOVARTIS as a standard character mark, in classes 5, 9, 10, 41, 42 and 44 with a filing date of 12 September 2013 and a registration date of 28 June 2016.

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT

The Novartis Group is one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups, developing and delivering medical treatments and drugs.  The Complainant, with headquarters in Switzerland, was created in 1996 through a merger of two other companies Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz, and is the holding company of the Novartis Group.

In 2024, the Novartis Group achieved net sales of USD 50.3 billion, and total net income amounted to USD 11.9 billion and employed approximately 76 000 full-time equivalent employees as of 31 December 2024.

The Complainant’s products are manufactured and sold in many countries worldwide including in Australia.

The Complainant owns numerous domain names composed of either its trade mark NOVARTIS alone, including <novartis.com> (created on 2 April 1996) or in combination with other terms, such as <novartispharma.com> (created on 27 October 1999). The Complainant uses these domain names to resolve to its official websites through which it informs Internet users and potential consumers about its mark and its related products and services.

Each of the Domain Names was registered on 29 September 2025. The Domain Names do not resolve to an active website.

On 6 October 2025, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Registrant via the Registrar for the Domain Names. The Complainant sent further reminders on 17 October 2025, but there was no response.

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Names are 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 Domain Names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Names have been registered and are 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.

The Panel accepts (as the Complainant alleges) that this is a case of deliberate typosquatting. The only sensible reading of the Domain Names is as a misspelling of the Complainant's name and trade mark, with the letter S in the mark NOVARTIS missing, combined with the words “premium” and/or “peptide”, and the “.com” gTLD.  A peptide is a short chain of amino acids sometimes used in medicinal products.

It follows from this that the Complainant's mark is clearly recognisable in the Domain Names sand that the Complainant thereby holds a mark that is "confusingly similar" to each of the Domain Name as that term is understood under the Policy. In this respect see section 1.7 and 1.9 the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Complainant has, therefore, made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

Further, typosquatting usually signals an intention on the part of the respondent to confuse users seeking or expecting the complainant (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). There is no right or legitimate interest in holding a domain name for that purpose and this also usually constitutes evidence that no such right or legitimate interest exists. Also, the registration and holding of a domain name to take advantage of such actual or potential confusion will usually involve bad faith registration and use (see sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0). The Panel holds that this is so in the case of the Domain Names.

The Complainant has, therefore, made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

The Panel also notes that the Respondent was the registrant in another case involving the Complainant and this Panel; i.e Novartis AG v Zekai Zhang CAC-UDRP-107437 (<novartisbiotech.com>). However, the Complainant has not advanced any case on this basis and the Panel has not needed to rely upon this fact in coming to its decision in this case.