{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101772", "time_of_filling": "2017-11-24 10:58:10", "domain_names": [ "mynovartis.com" ], "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Novartis AG" ], "complainant_representative": "BrandIT GmbH", "respondent": [ "novartis" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\n1) Novartis AG (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) submits that despite some minor differences in the details provided in the official WHOIS records for the two domains included in the complaint, the domains should be considered to be owned by the same registrant and\/or under common control. \r\n\r\n2) The Complainant declares to be a global healthcare company based in Switzerland that provides solutions to address the evolving needs of patients worldwide. Furthermore the Complainant informs that it manufactures drugs such as clozapine (Clozaril), diclofenac (Voltaren), carbamazepine (Tegretol), valsartan (Diovan) and many others as well as that its products are available in more than 180 countries.\r\n\r\n3) The Complainant has duly proved to be the owner of the registered well-known trademark \"NOVARTIS\" as a word and figure mark in several classes in numerous countries all over the world including in India, where the Respondent is located and that these trademark registrations long predate the registration of the disputed domain names. \r\n\r\n4) In Complainant's view, due to extensive use, advertising and revenue associated with its trademarks worldwide, the Complainant enjoys a high degree of renown around the world, including in India, where the Respondent is located. The Complainant has previously successfully challenged several domain names including the word NOVARTIS through UDRP processes.\r\n\r\n5) The Complainant outlines that in the WIPO Case No. D2016-1688, Novartis AG v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d\/b\/a PrivacyProtect.org, \/ Sergei Lir regarding the domain name , the Panel confirmed that \"NOVARTIS\" is a well-known worldwide trademark.\r\n\r\n6) Complainant has registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term NOVARTIS, for example, (created on April 02, 1996), (created on April 25, 1998), (created on August 7, 2013) & Novartis.us (created on 19.04.2002). The Complainant uses these domain names to connect to a website through which it informs potential customers about its \"NOVARTIS\" mark and its products and services. \r\n\r\n7) According to the Complainant, the domain names in dispute are similar to its \"NOVARTIS\" trademark. In the case of the disputed domain name directly and entirely incorporates the Complainant’s trademark along with the possessive pronoun “my\". In the case of the disputed domain name resolves in a typo variant of the \"NOVARTIS\" mark along with the geographic identifier “India”. \r\n\r\n8) The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the domain names or that it has interest over the domain names or the major part of it. While the WHOIS information for notes that the registrant organisation is claimed to be “novartis”, there is nothing else in the WHOIS records, or in the content of the associated websites, which relates the Respondent to the disputed domain names. Furthermore, the Complainant outlines that the domain name does not resolve to an active website, while the resolves to a pay-per-click parking page. \r\n\r\n9) The Complainant argues that the Complainant trademarks predate the registration of the domain names and that the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the domain names. It is therefore inconceivable in the Complainant's view that the unique combination of the well-known mark “NOVARTIS”, and the typo variant NOTVARTIS in the domain names along with, respectively, the words “my” and “india”, are not a deliberate and calculated attempt to improperly benefit from the Complainant’s rights and confuse internet users.\r\n\r\n10) The Complainant informs that an attempt to contact the owner of the disputed domain names was made on October 26, 2017 through a cease and desist letter. The letter was sent to the email address listed in the WHOIS record. In the cease and desist letter, the Complainant advised the Respondent that the unauthorized use of its trademarks within the domain names in disputed violated their trademark rights and the Complainant requested a voluntary transfer of the domain names. Despite the letter and reminders from the Complainant concerning the use of the domain names in dispute, the Respondent has simply disregarded such communications. \r\n\r\n11) The Complainant insists that there is no active website associated with the domain and that the website associated with is a pay-per-click parking page. In the Complainant's view, passive holding may apply even in the event of sporadic use, or of the mere “parking” by a third party of a domain name as it happens in the current case. \r\n\r\n12) The Complainant also notes that the Respondent registered three domain names on the same day using the \"NOVARTIS\" mark or a confusingly similar version thereof and that such pattern of abusive conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith. \r\n\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names and .", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.", "rights": "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).", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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).", "bad_faith": "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).", "procedural_factors": "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.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Avv. Guido Maffei" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-12-28 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner, among others, of the following trademark registrations relating to \"NOVARTIS\" which enjoy protection in numerous countries and, inter alia, in India:\r\n\r\n- Word mark NOVARTIS, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Registration No. 666218, registered on October 31, 1996 and duly renewed.\r\n\r\n- Word-\/design mark NOVARTIS LONG LIVE LIFE, WIPO, Registration No. 1155214, registered on January 24, 2013. \r\n\r\n- Word mark NOVARTIS, European Office for Intellectual Property (EUIPO), Registration No. 304857, registered on June 25, 1999 and duly renewed.\r\n\r\n- Word mark NOVARTIS, Indian trademark office, Application No. 700020 filed on February 28, 1996 duly regitered and renewed. ", "decision_domains": { "MYNOVARTIS.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "NOTVARTISINDIA.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }