Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108950

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

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks including the word NOVARTIS, such as:

• the international word trademark NOVARTIS registered on 1 July 1996 under No. 663765 for goods and services of the classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 40, 42;
• the European word trademark NOVARTIS registered on 17 March 2015 under No. 13393641 for goods and services of the classes 9 and 10; and
• the United States word trademark NOVARTIS registered on 4 April 2000 under No. 2336960 for goods and services of the classes 1, 5, 9, 10, 29, 30, 31, 32, 42.

The Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names comprising the mark NOVARTIS, including <novartis.com>, <novartis.ch>, and <novartispharma.com>.

The Novartis Group is one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups. Novartis AG, with headquarters in Switzerland, was created in 1996 through a merger of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz and is the holding company of the Novartis Group. The Group provides solutions addressing the evolving needs of patients worldwide by developing and delivering innovative medical treatments and drugs. In 2025, Novartis achieved net sales of USD 54.5 billion, total net income of USD 14 billion, and employed 75,267 full-time equivalent employees as of 31 December 2025. The Group also offers a wide range of career and training opportunities and maintains a substantial online presence.

The disputed domain name <novartiiscareers.com> was registered on 29 July 2026. On 31 July 2026, it resolved to a parking page. At the time of filing, it did not resolve to an active website and has been passively held.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

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.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.

The disputed domain name incorporates, in its second-level part, the Complainant’s well-known trademark NOVARTIS in recognizable form, an additional letter “i,” and the term “careers.” The addition of such a descriptive term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity to the trademark. The NOVARTIS trademark remains clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name, and “careers” is apt to refer to the career opportunities offered by the Novartis Group. The generic Top-Level Domain extension “.com” is typically disregarded under the confusing similarity test, as it is a standard requirement for registration. The additional letter is a typographical variation consistent with typosquatting; minor alterations of this kind do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (see CAC-UDRP-106667). The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NOVARTIS trademark.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name

The Complainant states that the Respondent is not authorized in any way to make use of the NOVARTIS trademark, including in the disputed domain name. In addition, there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name or owns any corresponding registered trademarks. The Respondent’s name does not correspond to the disputed domain name. The structure of the disputed domain name, combining a typographical variant of NOVARTIS with “careers,” carries a risk of implied affiliation and may lead Internet users to believe that it is linked to, or operated by, the Complainant. The disputed domain name resolved to a parking page and does not resolve to an active website. The Panel finds that the Respondent has not made legitimate use of the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for legitimate non-commercial or fair use. In the absence of any Response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith

The NOVARTIS trademark is well-known and its registrations significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name combines that recognizable mark with a deliberate typographical variation and the term “careers.” In view of the Complainant’s substantial pharmaceutical and healthcare business, its strong online presence and its career opportunities, it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and the NOVARTIS trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name reflects the Respondent’s intention to create an association, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, with the Complainant and its trademark. By reading the disputed domain name, Internet users may believe that it is directly connected to or authorized by the Complainant.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth circumstances evidencing bad faith registration and use, including intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. In the context of a typosquatted NOVARTIS-formative domain paired with “careers,” the parking and subsequent passive holding are not neutral and there is no evidence of any actual or contemplated good-faith use. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.