{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102493",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-05-17 10:18:58",
    "domain_names": [
        "hbnovartis.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novartis AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BrandIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "li dong qun"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, Novartis AG, was created in 1996 through a merger of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz. It is a global healthcare company based in Switzerland that provides solutions to address the evolving needs of patients worldwide. It manufactures drugs such as clozapine (Clozaril), diclofenac (Voltaren), carbamazepine (Tegretol), valsartan (Diovan) and many others.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s products are sold in about 155 countries and they reached nearly 800 million people globally in 2018. About 125 000 people of 145 nationalities work at Novartis around the world.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on March 18, 2019 and presently resolves to an active website offering online lottery services in the Chinese language.  \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 name. ",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nComplainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to the NOVARTIS mark because it contains the entire mark and differs only by the addition “hb”.\r\n\r\nComplainant also argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known as the domain name or in possession of licensing rights.\r\n\r\nComplainant further argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant argues that Respondent possessed actual notice and knowledge of its NOVARTIS mark due to its fame and Respondent had acted in bad faith by registering the disputed domain name. Complainant also argues that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not file a Response.  \r\n",
    "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.\r\n\r\nLanguage of the Proceeding\r\n\r\nParagraph 11 of the Policy provides that:\r\n\r\n“(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”\r\n\r\nThe language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. \r\n\r\nThe Panel cites the following with approval:\r\n\r\n“Thus, the general rule is that the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding. In the absence of this agreement, the language of the Registration Agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding. However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Panel’s discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs. It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case.” (See Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006 0004).\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that in the present case, the following should be taken into consideration upon deciding on the language of the proceeding:\r\n\r\n(i) The disputed domain name consists of Latin letters, rather than Chinese characters; \r\n\r\n(ii) The Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to conduct the proceeding in the Chinese language;\r\n\r\n(iii) The Respondent did not object to the Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceeding.\r\n\r\nUpon considering the above, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Mr. Jonathan Agmon"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-07-03 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant is the owner of numerous “NOVARTIS” trademarks worldwide and in China including „NOVARTIS“ (Reg No. G663765 registered on July 1, 1996).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns various domain names including <novartis.com> and <novartis.com.cn>.  \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "HBNOVARTIS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}